161–170 of 180 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, what is wrong with the statement?
At best, it doesn't say anything useful. You can say the same thing about carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen, etc. At worst, it implies that, like essential amino acids, it CAN be synthesized by some living organism.
It does not imply that.
> something our bodies can’t synthesize Iodine is an element! As such, it cannot be produced by a chemical reaction and so isn't synthesized in any living organism. It's produced in supernova explosions, by the rapid neutron capture process.
I'd argue that it's not completely unreasonable to claim that stars are living organisms in some sense of this expression
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When my wife's doctor recommended more iodine in her diet, I was surprised how hard it was to find iodized flaky salt. I only found one brand I could order, and it was extremely expensive and didn't have a great texture for cooking with. I keep iodized table salt around and sometimes use it for salting soup, stock, or pasta water, but 99% of the time I reach for plain old Morton kosher salt.
Flaky salt is easy to make. You can adjust the texture as desired. I usually start with a bucket of sea water, but iodized salt works too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd argue that it's not completely unreasonable to claim that stars are living organisms in some sense of this expression
Then you might enjoy "Star Maker" by Olaf Stapeldon. It is available on Amazon.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The absence of a plausible mechanism of action alone should raise serious questions. I'm just a layperson, so forgive the possibly dumb question: why would this be weighted so heavily? I read it as "we can't think of how this could work, so we should assume it doesn't". But that just seems like hubris to me.
This is a fair question. It is based on the chemistry of fluorine. Fluorine has the strongest electronegativity of any element in the periodic table. It requires extreme measures to muscle fluorine off a molecule. This is why it is used in non-stick surfaces like Teflon (nothing can “grip” the surface molecules because fluorine won’t let it) and why it is used in toothpaste (molecules that might attack the tooth surf…
If our understanding is complete (in other words there is nothing else to know about flourine) then not having a known mechanism of action would be a good proof. But when is our understanding ever complete about anything?
It seems a lot easier to know things like "in the presence of x, fluorine does y" because you can easily observe that isolated thing under test. It's harder to know "fluorine does not do x in any circumstance" because the tests for that are infinite. How do we know we just haven't tested the right case yet?
Again, I'm a layman, so I can only try to logic my way through this. I acknowledge that it may be a dumb question.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was never concerned about iodine. A chef suggested kosher salt as being easier to use and I switched a long time ago. If anything, my concern now would be if I should make sure we are not lacking in iodine.
You can seaweed, another source of iodine.
A significant source of declining iodine levels in humans can also be traced to increased bromide found in food and medications. Most notably potassium iodate was used as a bread conditioner until the 1950s when it was substituted for potassium bromate. [0] Excess bromide levels displace the iodide stored in the thyroid and is a contributing factor to the described increase of groiter. Bromide also has the added draw…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, what is wrong with the statement?
At best, it doesn't say anything useful. You can say the same thing about carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen, etc. At worst, it implies that, like essential amino acids, it CAN be synthesized by some living organism.
the fact it doesn't add more, possibly irrelevant, information does not diminish its usefulness.
it does not imply anything about things that aren't being discussed. it's abnormal to read everything with a qualification like "in our bodies" as a implication of some other hidden meaning.
as technical people we probably enjoy delving into tangents and pedantry far too much. but, for example, adding a statement "... In fact, iodine is an element and cannot be synthesized ... " would be a tangent and should be avoided or edited out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, what is wrong with the statement?
At best, it doesn't say anything useful. You can say the same thing about carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen, etc. At worst, it implies that, like essential amino acids, it CAN be synthesized by some living organism.
A significant source of declining iodine levels in humans can also be traced to increased bromide found in food and medications. Most notably potassium iodate was used as a bread conditioner until the 1950s when it was substituted for potassium bromate. [0] Excess bromide levels displace the iodide stored in the thyroid and is a contributing factor to the described increase of groiter. Bromide also has the added draw…
bromide in flour is a uniquely US thing too, and IMO you can taste the difference when you eat bread in other places.