If chlorine is poison, then why don't they put a warning label on Splenda?
467736
Splenda's flat-out disgusting. I put it in my coffee at work once and it fizzed. I didn't hesitate in dumping it out. Gross. Sugar is much better for you. Ewww Splenda.
1157184
No! It isn't really possible for many reasonss to include dilution and chlorine. In addition, body fluids are not normally released in a pool!
640051
its worse for you than sugar because you body dosent recognize splenda and cannot process it . your body is able to process sugar so you can get fatter eating splenda.
59835
Not all foods that contain mercury are required to have the warning label. The FDA requires only foods with a certain level of mercury to have the label - and that's only if you eat a certain amount of it.\n\nCheck the link below for a statement on mercury from the FDA.
911004
I won't touch the stuff because it uses an altered chlorine molecule and I already get headaches from Aspartame.\nThe best sweeteners are real food.\nIf blood sugar is a concern, the LIQUID form of a plant called Stevia is a sweetener that is easy on the palate & no spike in sugar levels. I believe no calories either. Just 3 drops sweetens my cocoa (which I make very strong).\nHoney, unprocessed molasses, chickory root syrup, agave (from cactus) nectar- there are so many alternatives at a good health food store. Also I find that I can eliminate or decrease sugar if I use a drop of Vanilla.\nKudos to you for listening to your body. Ingestion of chemicals is a good thing to avoid- some of us are lucky enough to have a sensitive system to remind us of this. Best of health to you!
1117539
2400mg Max! Its hard to do coz all process foods have salt.Dont add salt to anything and read labels carefully.Cheese pizza and hamburgers are loaded with salt!Forget fish and chips all together.Look at bread labels, cottage cheese,even yogurt and you will be surprised at the amount of salt they have! The AMA is trying to force the FDA to add a new label to foods.I hope they can do this coz it will be a great help.
64522
Why do you abuse this Answer system with your propoganda?  You didn't want an answer, you wanted to spew your pseudo-scientific garbage, and it looks like it failed.\n\nFluoridated water is safe and it's use is supported by REPUTABLE groups such as the ADA, AMA, WHO, CDC and hundreds of other scientifically SOUND organizations.  For a list of these please go to\n\nhttp://www.fluoridefacts.org/fluoride/flu_supp_org.asp\n\nMost groups that are against this tend to be fringe, self-serving groups who use scare tactics, innuendo, pseudo-science and other despicable techniques.  When faced with OVERWHELMING evidence from the scientific world I am sure you whip out the "conspiracy" BS too.\n\nThe vast majority of communities and people do not fall for this garbage and thus have a healthy fluoridated water system. \n\nYou should be ashamed of yourself for yourself for posted such poorly-documented pap.\n\nI am sure you are probably against the chlorination of water too.  Chlorine is poisonous too.....
42807
You should research the negatives about this substance before deciding to do that.\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stevia\n\nWhy not use something like Splenda instead?
1009398
Not sure who but they should be shot along with the inventers of artificial sweeteners. They cause many of the same problems plus a few more like cancer.
1133205
Generally, when a manufacturer makes something have less fat, they increase the sugar, and that's not good for you.  You really just have to read the nutrition facts label and skim/scan the list of ingredients for things you're trying to avoid.
826503
I just watched a news special recently on nbc re: freezing water bottles.\n\nI found this article that I copied and pasted.  But I have also read on other websites that it does not.\n\n"DIOXINS Carcinogens cause cancer. Especially breast cancer. Don't freeze your plastic water bottles with water as this also releases dioxins in the plastic. Dr. Edward Fujimoto from Castle Hospital was on a TV program explaining this health hazard. He is the manager of the Wellness Program at the hospital. He was talking about dioxins and how bad they are for us. He said that we should not be heating our food in the microwave using plastic containers. This applies to foods that contain fat. He said that the combination of fat, high heat and plastics releases dioxins into the food and ultimately into the cells of the body. Dioxins are carcinogens and highly toxic to the cells of our bodies.\n\nThen I found this article from John Hopkins that says it does not\n\n\nBALTIMORE -- Johns Hopkins researchers have responded to an e-mail warning against freezing water bottles. A recent e-mail hoax claims Hopkins scientists warned people that freezing plastic bottles releases dioxins into the water. But the researchers say that's entirely false -- they said freezing plastic water bottles will not expose people to dangerous chemicals.\n\nResults | Disclaimer \n \nAccording to Dr. Rolf Halden, of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, freezing actually works against the release of chemicals and scientists are not even sure plastics contain dioxins. \nHowever, Halden does warn that another group of chemicals that are used to make plastic less brittle can be released if you place them in hot water or heat them in the microwave.\n\nBut Halden stresses that people should not be afraid of drinking water and that "you are more likely to suffer from the adverse effects of dehydration than from the miniscule amounts of chemical contaminants present in your water supply."\n\nHe also said people should be more concerned about the quality of the water they drink more than the bottle from which they drink it. Although people tend to assume bottled water is the safest route, Halden said city water is much more highly regulated and monitored for quality.
574653
Because if the composition is too acidic or too basic one way or the other, the soda could be toxic.\n\nAlso, it wouldn't taste good or sell well.
125218
It's cost effective is likely the main reason, besides the significant public health concern. \n\nWhen chlorine treatment was introduced in the early 1900's diseases like typhoid, cholera, and dysentery were commonly carried in drinking water and chlorination effectively eliminated them. BUT:\nI quote:\n"... the July [1992]  issue of the American Journal of Public Health, researchers found that people who regularly drink tap water containing high levels of chlorinated hydrocarbons have a greater risk of developing bladder and rectal cancers than people who drink unchlorinated water.  The study estimates that about 9% of all bladder and 18% of all rectal cancer cases are associated with long-term consumption of these hydrocarbons.  This amounts to over 20,000 new cases each year!"\n\nEuropean water treatment has largely shifted to ozone and filtration, and they have found it works. Plus the chlorine residuals are about 10 times less than in US water. \n\nYour question is timely for me because my public water company just sent me a letter announcing that the drinking water was above regulatory limits for trihalomethanes-and this is caused by chlorination. Dibromochloromethane is associated with cancer risk of one per million at 0.6 micrograms per liter. That's about the same as 6 parts per billion. Not terrible odds at 1 per million, but I don't like that ppb since the smallest I can measure in the lab is probably about 3 parts per billion. In other words, it’s barely measurable.\n\nAnything like water that one consumes in large quantities daily for year after year deserves some attention. I am often the first to dismiss the latest crazy report about something else that will kill me, but with water it is statistically different. I see no choice but to filter drinking water. What else can you do?  \n\nFluoride? Well, you probably get a fair amount in your toothpaste. It’s normally kept around 1 ppm in drinking water so I doubt it is really that much of a problem. I suspect that using fluoride cuts down on the amount of chlorine needed so it may not always add to costs of treatment.
58686
You have a very broad question there. (Poison) is a term that encompasses a vast range of items.  Some get more deadly others less.  For instance Clorine can be quite toxic to a human and is therefore classified as a poison but since it also evaporates in the air after a while you will not have any Chlorine left in a certain vial.  Or take Iodine for instance very leathal if taken internally but since it sublimates (Goes from solid to gas) it will even leave a closed container and after a while you will have nothing left.  While others break down into components that can be more deadly.  Then you have to also consider how does your body metabolize poisons.  For instance some "poisons" aren't actually toxic until you body tries to break them down. Such is the case of antifreeze.  While talking with a doctor I was working with he stated that since the liver can only metabolize one poison at a time if you give it another poison to metabolize such as alcohol it will work on the alcohol and leave the antifreeze and while that is happening it is excreted by your kidneys unmetabolized and therefore not poisonous to you.
439823
Aspartame carries a phenoketoneuric warning.. The reason is because aspartame is broken down into phenylalanine, which accumulates in the brain in phenoketneurics (they cannot break down the protein)..  \n\nSaccharin used to carry a warning that it causes cancer in lab animals.. however, the doses used in the study were insane amounts.. I am not sure if the warning labels are there anymore..
209517
theres a perfume called poison. It was popular in the 80s I think... Other than that I think that poison is just a title given to liquids that have harmful side-effects if they're ingested.
43062
No. Chlorine is highly reactive and as a result is not found in its free state in nature.