I wouldn't even take Hazzy's report as anywhere near to being conclusive. i don't know why you guys even have the gut to even hold it as PROOF that it's poisonous.
when no one on this forum so far is able to prove that 0.22ppm of cyanide is dangerous in the first place. from what I see, all you guys are doing is keep holding that 0.22ppm on the test result and assuming it's dangerous.
QUOTE
Introduction
Cyanides are both man-made and naturally occurring substances. They are found in a number of foods and plants and are produced by certain bacteria, fungi, and algae. Very small amounts of cyanide, in the form of vitamin B12 (cyanocobalamin), are a necessary part of the human diet.
Cyanides are both man-made and naturally occurring substances. They are found in a number of foods and plants and are produced by certain bacteria, fungi, and algae. Very small amounts of cyanide, in the form of vitamin B12 (cyanocobalamin), are a necessary part of the human diet.
QUOTE
Regulations
The government has made recommendations to limit the exposure of the general public to cyanide in food and the exposure of workers to cyanide in the workplace. Hydrogen cyanide is sometimes used to treat food after it is harvested to prevent pest damage. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) allows levels of cyanide in food ranging from 25 ppm in dried beans, peas, and nuts to 250 ppm in spices.
The government has made recommendations to limit the exposure of the general public to cyanide in food and the exposure of workers to cyanide in the workplace. Hydrogen cyanide is sometimes used to treat food after it is harvested to prevent pest damage. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) allows levels of cyanide in food ranging from 25 ppm in dried beans, peas, and nuts to 250 ppm in spices.
http://www.eco-usa.net/toxics/cyanide-89.shtml
so please, can you guys tell me what does 0.22ppm here mean?
did the lab even say dangerous? or is it Hazzy just jumping to his own conclusion and the rest just ridiculously buying it?
*i understand that we're referring to SGs, my point (in case you guys didn't get it) is whether there's actual proof that it is dangerous for SG in the first place?* I've seen the SG thread and it was ridiculous on how some people were pissed or start showing appalling behavior on their posts when they don't even know what the report is talking about. So unless you're some chemical expert who understand what the report actually meant, please don't jump into conclusion.
This post has been edited by goldfries: Oct 6 2008, 06:13 AM
Oct 6 2008, 06:06 AM
Quote
0.0201sec
0.87
7 queries
GZIP Disabled