Re: A few gum things
What they reported is probably true for the specific test
conditions they were concerned, but I argue that their
condition does not apply to what we are discussing here. Do
you plan to spray a 0.2% glut solution or a 1.2% formaldehyde
solution to your nostril for 5 days in a row just to detect
something, and then spray 23 more days to analyze the
differences in the damage caused by them in the molecular
I wouldn't spray 0.01% solution directly into my nostril, even
Perhaps more useful to note here is that, they used 6x
stronger (by weight per volume) formaldehyde test solution to
equalize the degree of apparent cellular (but not molecular)
damages but in reality glut is used in 1/10 the weight and
much of it is permanently bound to gelatin (thus leaving much
less than 1/10 the amount of unreacted residue).
Note: formaldehyde HCHO = 30, glut = pentane dial = 100.
My conclusion doesn't change: glut is easier to limit the
potential damage due to accidental exposure, when correctly
used, compared to formaldehyde.
"People seldom do what they believe in. They do what is convenient,
then repent." (Bob Dylan, Brownsville Girl, 1986)
From: Don Sweet <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: A few gum things
Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 08:22:54 +1200
> Please refer to
> Don Sweet
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ryuji Suzuki" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> To: <email@example.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2008 10:48 PM
> Subject: Re: A few gum things
> > From: Don Sweet <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > Subject: Re: A few gum things
> > Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 13:36:31 +1200
> > > One analysis I found on google suggests the apparent lack of
> > > carcinogenic response to g'de is due to its greater toxicity
> > > compared to f'de!
> > Not true.
> > --
> > Ryuji Suzuki
> > "The truth that I am seeking is in your missing file."
> > (Bob Dylan, Something's Burning Baby, 1985)