Steven B. Harris
sbharris at ix.netcom.com
Fri Aug 4 01:08:13 EST 1995
In <3vsadp$6r9 at ixnews5.ix.netcom.com> ppolson at ix.netcom.com (Peter
Polson ) writes:
>Hey!, guys and gal:
>All of this is starting to get --well-- mind-numbing.
>Betty has reams of "documentation" that she believes proves her point.
>Those of us who have encountered pathological science in other arenas
>know that perception is reality to such persons. There is always a
>nugget of truth in the arguments that are presented for _The Hazard_
>(of the month). Methanol _is_ hazardous at certain levels. What are
>the levels that even the most ardent consumers of aspartame are
>to? (Wait for the counter arguments about long-term low-level
>It seems to me that Betty is gathering information and rebuttals for
>her best-seller expose book. For her, case studies and anecdotes will
>win every time over controlled scientific studies. (Try sci.sceptic
>for other examples.)
>I'm going to have a martini or two. I know they are narcotic and
>hazardous to my health in excess, affecting brain function, vision,
>balance, motor coordination, slurring of speech, disturbed sleep,
>visions of pink elephants, etc., but....also enjoyable! ;-)
Yes, only the dose makes the poison. Too much vitamin A, iron,
selenium, even pure water will make you very sick, permanently injure,
even kill you. Does that mean smaller quantities are bad for you? Not
necessarily. The same goes for ethanol. And the same goes for
methanol. So methanol is a "cumulative poison" we are told. Now
honestly-- do you know any poisons that aren't? Poisons are all
capable of causing permanent damage, and permenent damage is by
definition cumulative. This entire argument is bizarre in the extreme
to anyone with a shred of knowledge in toxicology.
Steve Harris, M.D.
More information about the Neur-sci