This has upset me for years. I work in powerplants. To clean the coal tubes in powerplants, they use Saccharine, they do not let us in the same room they store the saccharine in, without an oxegen supplying resperator. But it is fine to drink in your coffee. I talked to a health dept. employee friend of mine, and they checked and said it was fine, because the sacchrine for your coffee is only a 4% strength. Glad i dont drink it.
Comments (32)
sorted by:
My husband drinks coffee all day. :( I don't like it, he thinks im weird cause I don't like it. Never have liked it, never will now..
Coffee by itself or with safer sweeteners is fine. Saccharine would be added separately—the artificial sweetener in pink packets, IIRC. It’s not nearly as commonly used as it was 30+ years ago.
My grandma put that stuff in her tea everyday. She was so sharp and witty until the dementia took over. Now it's out that if you consume one saccharine or aspartame filled drink a day, it triples your chances of getting dementia.
Yiiiikes. Not to mention, kidney stones and all kindsa other problems. That stuff's bad news.
Research anything that safely induces neurogenesis and give that to your grandma.
Long shot, but could help.
Thanks, but she died shortly before the covid lockdowns.
He uses reg sugar no artificial sweeteners. the way the OP stated it, like it was in the coffee itself not the sweetener. Hopefully that is the case like you said. I wouldn't doubt it though if it was in the coffee
sugar is ALSO BAD, i use Stevia. But i now can use just heavy cream. mmmmmm, fat.
Yeah, he has started to change and use whole milk but still can't go without the sugar in it.
try stevia, it's a sweetener that's not invasive to your liver.
I've never heard of it being in the coffee itself, and as strongly-artificial as saccharine tastes even in small amounts, I'd be surprised if it could be added and go undetected. I would guess his coffee is pretty safe, though sugar itself isn't great for you. kek! It's always something, isn't it?? If we don't get poisoned one way, they find another. 😞
The difference between a poison and medicine is often the dosage
Saccharine is a trigger for Asthma for me. As a kid, drinking orange squash would make me wheezy, I narrowed it down to saccharine.
A certain shop used to sell Indian tonic water that I used to buy, own brand, and I bought it because it was made only with sugar. Suddenly I got wheezy drinking it and sure enough they started adding saccharine as well as sugar.
I see this a lot now, previously items with just sugar are phasing out sugar and using sweetners, cheaper I suppose. Now the only tonic available without sweetner is very expensive type.
Thanks, did not know this. I read that coal ash is another problem and is used in chem spraying. Moving on to that 'green' energy of Nuclear Power plants. It truly is a 'gift' that keeps on giving.
Did you know, there is no way of really shutting down a nuclear power plant when it is suppose to be decommissioned?
The expense is extraordinary. This is why the Department of Energy is always extending the life of old nuclear plants. It's basically kicking the can down the street. Because the NRC is extending the life of these reactors, every single one of those nuclear reactors is a ticking time bomb and another Fukishima or Chernobyl waiting to happen.
The NRC reports that there is over** 71,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel** in more than 30 states. Illinois has 9,301 tons of spent nuclear fuel at its power plants, the most of any state in the country, according to industry figures. It is followed by Pennsylvania with 6,446 tons; 4,290 in South Carolina and roughly 3,780 tons each for New York and North Carolina.
Most all of this is stored on-site at nuclear power plants across the nation either in cooling pools or dry casket storage. None of these storage methods is a solution to long-term storage. Cooling pools require a constant supply of fresh water. The Fukushima disaster occurred because the "fail-safe" backup power for the pumps lost power resulting in the several cooling pools to evaporate exposing the spent fuel rods to air. This caused a nuclear fission chain reaction leading to a China Syndrome of at least three reactors.
Nuclear power is heavily subsidized by the government and without it could NEVER be profitable. There is far more to nuclear power than its expensive energy. The integral byproduct of this energy is radiation that causes "aging" to the containment vessels themselves. This means the containment vessels become fatigued and brittle well before the normal life expectancy. This is why the Hanford site and the Diablo Nuclear power plant alarmingly found cracks and leaks in the units. Science has no solution to this. Yet, the NRC keeps extending the life of existing nuke plants well beyond their life expectancy.
Tick, tick, tick.........
Fission is basically a dirty energy having deep deleterious effects on generations of wildlife.
Do you know anything about nuclear power? Seriously? I went to nuclear school for the Navy and you are putting out pure unadulterated B.S. Let me correct the record on what you are attempting to speak that which you know nothing about. Old reactors are not ticking time bombs that will melt down and launch the reactor vessel head many feet into the air and crap out devastating amounts of radioactive particulates all over the place. If you know why that happened, or want to know the short hand version, they bypassed safeties and performed a test on the night shift and had a loss of communication causing an overpower issue. The inherent design of that particular reactor (not common) was the hotter the coolant became, the more reactive it became, this is because of the use of heavy water. Most reactors use pure water, as it gets hotter, the water becomes less dense (expands) and causes less fissions, AKA, self correcting. They are, by design, self limiting. Moving on to the Fukishima reactor, they had a poor design, allowing the diesel fuel to be knocked out by a storm that shut down there backup means of running pumps, whose normal power was also knocked out, causing overpressurization and release of radioactive particulate (that was actually taken care of really well, people just overreacted because of Russia's mistake). Nuclear power is so efficient, it blows away conventional powerplants. You can achieve >90% efficiency with these systems. I cannot speak to the cost / cost savings, but anytime the gov't gets involved, they usually drive the prices through the roof. I'd say the gov't makes it NOT profitable. Nuclear reactors owned and operated by the navy have been around, some for over 50 years without much damage to components. Additionally, the radiation received, read from a Thermo-Luminescent Detector (TLD) verifies that those working closest to the source of the radiation and to radioactive particulate receive a lower dose than being outside. Proof is that if you leave your TLD on the dash of your car, or if you fly (especially if you fly), it will actually trigger a warning to the guy who reads your TLD, to the point where you'll be questioned how you even achieved that high level of radiation. In 6 years of nuclear power, I totalled 87mRem. I worked jobs in the "hottest" places in the reactor's compartment, and still, that's it. Where did you get your information from?
Excellent summation
Most neglect to mention that France gets about 90% of their power from Nuclear
And Germany shut all of theirs down. Hey, we want to be like France, no?
I was wiser than that. I said -- Thanks, but no thanks and I went to a different school. It's good thing I did too. You guys glow in the dark. Of course, that's where you all worked, in the bowels of the ship in all that near 100 degree F hell hole. No wonder no top-siders sat at the same chow-hall table, you hellboys smelled.
That "poor design" is the same design of several nuclear plants in the United States like one at Montecello, MN. Thanks for making my point for me. You also need not explain away Three-Mile Island, Chernobyl, and the Hanford Nuclear Site. These are the more obvious "safest" energy producing plants. No one can ever reside at Chernobyl and Fukishima again. Not at least safely for several hundred years. The cancer rates at Three-Mile Island and Hanford is unprecedented, but is one big cover-up of legal mumbo-jumbo. The area surrounding all other nuclear sites have much higher cancer rates than areas outside 75 miles away. Nuclear Power plants release radiation hiccups all the time. Tell me would you breathe the steam coming out of those cooling towers?
Studies show consistently that people within 50-75 miles of a nuclear power plant have higher cancer rates than the rest of the population. Thanks again for making my point for me.
"Cancer rates five times higher near power station"
"The link between nuclear power stations and cancer rates"
"Breast Cancer Rates Skyrocket Near Nuclear Power Plants"
And it appears your statement about "working closest to the source of the radiation and to radioactive particulate receive a lower dose" statement is erroneous as well. The Navy did a fine job of brain-washing all those hellboy 'Nukes'.
"Nuclear Workers May Face Higher Cancer Risk"
Nuclear plants need considerable amounts of electricity to maintain safe operations around both the reactor and spent fuel pool. Most of the time, the power comes from another electric generating station nearby. Shutting down a nuclear power plant doesn't get rid of the hundreds and thousands of tons of spent fuel. Why? There is the lack of a national repository for spent fuel – meaning it must be stored on site – as well as the lack of a coherent nationwide policy. The Yucca Mountain repository is already well over capacity. The industry's collective pile of waste is growing by about 2,200 tons a year. Experts say some of the pools in the United States contain 4-times the amount of spent fuel that they were designed to handle. The U.S. has 104 operating nuclear reactors, situated on 65 sites in 31 states. There are another 15 permanently shut reactors that also house spent fuel. The Maine Yankee nuclear power plant hasn’t produced a single watt of energy in more than two decades, but it cost U.S. taxpayers about $35 million this year.
Before the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, private companies in the U.S. were responsible for their own clean-up and storage of spent nuclear fuel, quickly running out of storage space. However, those private companies were not sufficiently equipped to store their waste long-term, as some kinds of nuclear waste have a half-life (meaning the amount of time they remain radioactive) of up to 17 million years. Congress decided that going forward the burden of responsibility would lie with the United States government, putting the massive cost of cleanup on the shoulders of U.S. taxpayers. Can you say -CORPORATE WELFARE?.
Storing spent fuel at an operating plant with staff and technology on hand can cost $300,000 a year (it's probably much more). Obviously, this price tag doesn't go away after the plant is decommissioned. In fact, the taxpayer pays about 1/2-billion dollars a yr. to the utilities for their simply keeping the fuel because there’s no place for it to go.
"I think it’s discouraging that we continue to release radioactivity to the environment because after more than 40 years we still have not developed a successful plan for going forward."
-- Frank Stanton Professor in Nuclear Security, Senior Fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies and at the Precourt Institute for Energy
Taxpayers pay $6 billion every year to address that problem, a huge cost that we will incur for many decades into the future. The projected total cost of clean-up after the Manhattan Project is well over $300 billion. That’s more than the original cost of the weapons programs and the actual total will be even higher. That’s just the defense waste. Continuously having to pay for the nuclear waste storage at a decommissioned nuclear power plant year-after-year isn't exactly the definition of being decommissioned. Nuclear Energy as it stands today is a dirty energy. As I have shown, Nuclear energy is the very definition of corporate welfare. It simply is not profitable on its own.
ok, sure. faggot
You're welcome, faggot.
you simultaneously quote studies (that have no basis in reality) and doubt (actual) science and proven studies (experiences i have witnessed 1st hand that were things that were calculated and measured), but tell me again why you have hatred for nuclear power...
LOLs. It appears the radiation has gotten to you. I've definitely made my case. Be gone with you.
Additionally, they can be refueled, thus, they can be defueled, the Navy does this regularly. So I don't know where any of this information (or misinformation) stems from. But please stop.
It comes from several expert sources. Read the response I just posted above. And then I'll ask you to please stop. I was on a nuke ship. What you stated doesn't really mean anything concerning the spent fuel, and it's disposal, which is far less than a nuclear power plant by the way. Ships are comparatively very small and have an entire ocean to keep the reactors cool too.
spent fuel isn't that radioactive, it's spent. many reactors (all that i personally know of) are near major rivers and oceans.
Better look that up cause it can be used in Mox reactors. So, it ain't spent and depends on its radioactiveness. (temperature related).
Great comment. How crazy to go ahead with energy technology you can't contain? Engineers can do nothing about the 'thinning' of stainless steel containment vessels so we're left with a ticking time bomb.
Stainless steel containment vessel? Nah dog, if they did, then that engineer should be tortured and killed. No nuclear trained engineer would do that. It's a similar to stainless steel material that can last an obscenely long time. Without spilling classified information, I can tell you it is NOT stainless steel, it shares similar metals, but those other metals added make a BIG difference.
Enough of a difference to stop this 'thinning' or 'rearranging' effect?
Not so, look at Diablo Canyon. Radiation causes what is called in Material Science as 'Aging'. Long-term aging of organic materials in reactor containment buildings has become a major issue within the nuclear community. Radiation causes premature aging where stainless steel and other metals become brittle and crack.
then their engineers suck.