It's all just sodium lauryl sulphate.

Actually, this is made using the ingredients they use in Canada. This video is only linked on McD's Canadian website: http://yourquestions.mcdonalds.ca/questions/66

The stuff in the USA is different: http://nutrition.mcdonalds.com/getnutrition/ingredientslist.pdf (page 2)

Soybean oil, pickle relish [diced pickles, high fructose corn syrup, sugar, vinegar, corn syrup, salt, calcium chloride, xanthan gum, potassium sorbate (preservative),
spice extractives, polysorbate 80], distilled vinegar, water, egg yolks, high fructose corn syrup, onion powder, mustard seed, salt, spices, propylene glycol alginate,
sodium benzoate (preservative), mustard bran, sugar, garlic powder, vegetable protein (hydrolyzed corn, soy and wheat), caramel color, extractives of paprika, soy
lecithin, turmeric (color), calcium disodium EDTA (protect flavor).

>> ^E_Nygma:

It too is a cox-1 and cox-2 inhibitor,
>> ^lucky760:
Fascinating and something I've always wanted to know.
Now how do acetaminophen and naproxen sodium work?



I've found that gay men and horny women stay away from the cox inhibitors.

See bamdrew's explanation on paracetamol; it's just the trade name of acetaminophen in certain parts of the world, as tylenol is the tradename in the US. naproxen is another NSAID (non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug) like ibruprofen, and so has a very similar mechanism of action to it. It too is a cox-1 and cox-2 inhibitor, and other drugs exist which are more selective to one or the other, but most have been associated with severe although rare side effects (vioxx was a cox-2 selective inhibitor)

>> ^lucky760:

Fascinating and something I've always wanted to know.
Now how do acetaminophen and naproxen sodium work?

Fascinating and something I've always wanted to know.

Now how do acetaminophen and naproxen sodium work?

This is the stuff they want you to spray on the things you eat off of?
Sodium Lauryl Sulfate is bad for you.

This is absurd, Darwin absurd.

That much sodium....they're filming him and waiting for him to just plop face down on the table dead due to an off-the-charts electrolyte imbalance among other things.

As I said, the quote is my own, from another video on the subject.

As for the toxicity of ammonia, here is a link to the Health Effects portion of the CDC's Toxicological Profile for Ammonia.

Lots to read, but basically it shows that, except in huge doses of concentrated ammonia, ammonia is readily converted by the liver into urea (hence the ammonia smell of urine). Ingesting ammonia in quantities that are harmful (though still not fatal) causes burns, and ulceration of the mouth. Obviously if there was that much in the food, there would be a problem.

The report points out, "In a study of volunteers, ingestion of a single ammonium chloride tablet (approximately 15 mg NH4+/kg/day) led to a small transient increase (33% above fasting levels) in arterial blood concentrations of ammonium ion in 11 out of 20 subjects (Conn 1972); no change was noted in the remaining nine subjects in this group.[...]These data indicate that ingested ammonia is readily absorbed from the digestive tract and that the liver plays a large role in removing it from the blood (Conn 1972).



Basically, the FDA allows the use of ammonia to sterilize food products because, 1. the quantities needed to harm a human would cause said humans not to eat the products and 2. being naturally occurring, and necessary for life (for the provision of nitrogen for amino acid synthesis), the ingestion of ammonia in these quantities has no long-term health effects.

I'm not trying to argue that eating that pink goo is good for you - but the obsession with the ammonia is the wrong approach to attacking it. Phosphorus, sodium, potassium, magnesium, etc. are also poisonous in the right quantities, and they are also all necessary for human life.

If there is any common thread to my rants here on the sift, it's that people attacking the wrong subject, regardless of their intentions, makes them look stupid and reduces their credibility to those of us who care to know the truth. I completely agree with Maher's point that the republicans just attack anything the liberals support, but when he makes that point using misleading/wrong information, he's just as bad as them.>> ^Yogi:

>> ^Skeeve:
While I don't disagree with Maher's point, I'm getting really sick of people screaming about the ammonia used to treat the pink goo that is turned into chicken nuggets. As I said regarding another video:
"ammonia is a natural chemical that is necessary for human life. The amount of ammonia one would have to ingest to be harmful to a human is huge, and actually ingesting that much would be unthinkable because of the horrendous taste it would impart to the food."

This is like seeing someone sprinkle some sodium-free salt on their food and saying, "OMG that's potassium chloride! That's the lethal chemical in a lethal injection! That's going to kill you!!"
People just don't seem to care that a lot of chemicals that are popularly considered "toxic" are necessary for life or require unfathomably large doses to be harmful.

Where the hell is that quote from and is there any truth to it is what needs to be asked. To me that sounds like something a PR person would say, like in that video about Global Warming where they made the point that "CO2 is natural".
You've got more to answer for Skeeve and if you don't I'm bidding you a hearty GOOD DAY To You Sir!

>> ^Skeeve:

While I don't disagree with Maher's point, I'm getting really sick of people screaming about the ammonia used to treat the pink goo that is turned into chicken nuggets. As I said regarding another video:
"ammonia is a natural chemical that is necessary for human life. The amount of ammonia one would have to ingest to be harmful to a human is huge, and actually ingesting that much would be unthinkable because of the horrendous taste it would impart to the food."

This is like seeing someone sprinkle some sodium-free salt on their food and saying, "OMG that's potassium chloride! That's the lethal chemical in a lethal injection! That's going to kill you!!"
People just don't seem to care that a lot of chemicals that are popularly considered "toxic" are necessary for life or require unfathomably large doses to be harmful.


Where the hell is that quote from and is there any truth to it is what needs to be asked. To me that sounds like something a PR person would say, like in that video about Global Warming where they made the point that "CO2 is natural".

You've got more to answer for Skeeve and if you don't I'm bidding you a hearty GOOD DAY To You Sir!

While I don't disagree with Maher's point, I'm getting really sick of people screaming about the ammonia used to treat the pink goo that is turned into chicken nuggets. As I said regarding another video:

"ammonia is a natural chemical that is necessary for human life. The amount of ammonia one would have to ingest to be harmful to a human is huge, and actually ingesting that much would be unthinkable because of the horrendous taste it would impart to the food."


This is like seeing someone sprinkle some sodium-free salt on their food and saying, "OMG that's potassium chloride! That's the lethal chemical in a lethal injection! That's going to kill you!!"

People just don't seem to care that a lot of chemicals that are popularly considered "toxic" are necessary for life or require unfathomably large doses to be harmful.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'TSR, Uranium, Sodium, Terrapower, Bill Gates, Nuclear, New Nuclear' to 'TSR, Uranium, Sodium, Terrapower, Bill Gates, Nuclear, New Nuclear, ted' - edited by xxovercastxx

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

My point still holds that to hold any descent amount of energy that they are producing when no one is using power requires a HUGE number of these things. This tech isn't really new, they have been using it for years, this is just a new formulation, tech has been around since the 60s. The problem is the same problem now as then, chemical energy density just isn't that great. If you are trying to use it as some type of regulator, fine then, but that isn't what he is talking about. He is talking about storing up volumes of energy that wind and solar make when people don't want it, then inject that to the grid when it needs it. You need this because renewables are unpredictable. To store any real volume of energy worth caring about, you need 10s of thousands of these. For comparison, a single 1gigawatt power station (a pretty standard size in the industry of power generation) generates enough energy for hundreds of thousands of people, even in the shade.
I'm not trying to be a negative nancy, I like advances as much as the next guy, I just don't like all this investment in renewables over real grid solutions. The energy density of wind and solar makes them impractical solutions for primary load generation, but that is all we hear about in today's energy topics. It is like talking about saving pennies when your trillion in debt. It bugs me, so perhaps I am harping to much on this
>> ^curiousity:
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
I don't think this is even close to grid level storage, at all. For instance, in Austin this year, between 4 and 5 p.m we consumed 66,867 megawatts. For those who are counting, that is over 33k of these things. Lets talk about storing them. Each container would be 40x8x8 feet; or 2,560 cubic feet. Lets just say we need 1 hours worthish of power, so 33k of them. That is 84 million cubic feet! For reference, the Empire State building is 37 million cubic feet. So for one hour of power here in Austin, we would need about 3 Empire state buildings of liquid metal batteries, unless my math is wrong (someone check me!) If my math is right, this isn't even close to a grid level storage ability. Your going to need density on the order of 1000 better to even be reasonably sized at 84k cubic feet (about the size of a large factory, or concert hall).
The only reason to try and investigate battery grid backup is to address the issue of wind and solar being so energy inefficient, and volatile. It is a better solution to just have them generate secondary power and let new fission based technologies take hold; best of both worlds. Then again, I have a personal bias

I thought that he had clearly made the point that this investigation into grid battery technology was for the purpose of making those intermittent renewable resources reliable to the point that they could more easily attach to the grid. You are arguing that this isn't suitable for a purpose that he isn't designing it for.



Ahh... well thank you for clearing up what he really meant beyond what he said. I guess I only had to go off of what he said.

My point still holds that to hold any descent amount of energy that they are producing when no one is using power requires a HUGE number of these things. This tech isn't really new, they have been using it for years, this is just a new formulation, tech has been around since the 60s. The problem is the same problem now as then, chemical energy density just isn't that great. If you are trying to use it as some type of regulator, fine then, but that isn't what he is talking about. He is talking about storing up volumes of energy that wind and solar make when people don't want it, then inject that to the grid when it needs it. You need this because renewables are unpredictable. To store any real volume of energy worth caring about, you need 10s of thousands of these. For comparison, a single 1gigawatt power station (a pretty standard size in the industry of power generation) generates enough energy for hundreds of thousands of people, even in the shade.

I'm not trying to be a negative nancy, I like advances as much as the next guy, I just don't like all this investment in renewables over real grid solutions. The energy density of wind and solar makes them impractical solutions for primary load generation, but that is all we hear about in today's energy topics. It is like talking about saving pennies when your trillion in debt. It bugs me, so perhaps I am harping to much on this
>> ^curiousity:

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
I don't think this is even close to grid level storage, at all. For instance, in Austin this year, between 4 and 5 p.m we consumed 66,867 megawatts. For those who are counting, that is over 33k of these things. Lets talk about storing them. Each container would be 40x8x8 feet; or 2,560 cubic feet. Lets just say we need 1 hours worthish of power, so 33k of them. That is 84 million cubic feet! For reference, the Empire State building is 37 million cubic feet. So for one hour of power here in Austin, we would need about 3 Empire state buildings of liquid metal batteries, unless my math is wrong (someone check me!) If my math is right, this isn't even close to a grid level storage ability. Your going to need density on the order of 1000 better to even be reasonably sized at 84k cubic feet (about the size of a large factory, or concert hall).
The only reason to try and investigate battery grid backup is to address the issue of wind and solar being so energy inefficient, and volatile. It is a better solution to just have them generate secondary power and let new fission based technologies take hold; best of both worlds. Then again, I have a personal bias

I thought that he had clearly made the point that this investigation into grid battery technology was for the purpose of making those intermittent renewable resources reliable to the point that they could more easily attach to the grid. You are arguing that this isn't suitable for a purpose that he isn't designing it for.

>> ^Xaielao:

City tap water tastes like hell, and most bottled water (which more often than not IS tap water) contains salt to make you thirsty so you'll drink more. Don't believe me? Check that fancily named Dasani bottled water's ingredients. Makes me so glad I have a number of local springs that produce very high quality water that I get delivered monthly.


Uh, no. I actually have a mineral tester (Christmas present) for water. Bottled water is better than tap in terms of dissolved solids, and unless you think that bottled water companies are lying about the trace mineral contents in their water, the amounts are too small to matter. There's far more salt in Coke, or worse, V8 (http://www.livestrong.com/article/273911-sodium-levels-in-soft-drinks/).

The person making the video thinks that in "functioning democracies" the tap water is always safe to drink. Well yes, it is. On average. Unless you happen to live in a house that gets mud in the water supply, like a friend of mine, or my in-laws' house (guess who gave me the tester?) in Los Angeles where the tap water is light yellow, and fizzes. I only drink filtered or bottled water there.

A guy once backed into my car and drove off. It's always annoying when people try to avoid justice like that, but they get scared and shocked and then they don't think. I found out who it was and sneaked up on him in the dead of night and injected him with sodium thiopental to knock him out. When he woke up, I had wrapped his car up in plastic wrap and tied him to the hood of the car. After showing him a picture of my beat up Geo, I proceeded to make a few incisions into his neck and bleed him dry. Once he slipped out of consciousness, I sawed off his feet right at the middle of the shin, then middle of the thigh. Luckily, there wasn't really much blood, since it was all drained out through his severed carotid artery. From there it was a easy task splitting the body into small parts that could fit in the nice garbage bag. The torso was the most difficult, since it's unwieldy, but you can essentially chop it into four cubes and then it's easy to deal with, just be careful not to spill guts or internal organs anywhere. The north sea has some nice currents that dragged the sunken bags out into the ocean really well. Good times.
I also started watching Dexter lately.