Vol. 23, No. 8 - Access to Energy Newsletter

Two weeks ago, as part of enzyme analysis work here, we ordered a kilogram of high purity sucrose manufactured by International Biotechnologies, Inc., a subsidiary of Eastman Kodak Company. Sucrose is used to reduce diffusion and mixing during one of our procedures. In due course, a wonderful bottle and data sheet arrived -complete with six-digit lot number, purity specifications, chemical data, and a list of 15 alternative names for sucrose including: beet sugar; cane sugar; confectioner's sugar; fructofuranoside, alpha-D-glucopyranosyl, beta-D; beta-D-fructofuranoside, alpha-D-glucopyr-anosyl; glucopyranoside, beta-D-fructofuranosyl, alpha-D; alpha-D-glucopyranosyl beta-D-fructofuranoside; (alpha-D-gluco-sido)-beta-D-fructofuranoside; granulated sugar; NCI-C56597; rock candy; saccharose; saccharum; sucrose (OSHA); and sugar.

The data sheet even provides the LD50s (amount required to kill 50% of the animals) for rats and mice to three significant figures -29700 mg/kg and 14000 mg/kg, respectively. Apparently, five pounds of sugar has a 50-50 chance of killing a 170 pound rat - or man if he behaves (biologically) like a rat. (We are apparently safe, since there are only 2 pounds in our bottle.) This is all very scientific.

The data sheet provides, however, additional advice. Included are: "First Aid - In case of contact, immediately wash skin with soap and copious amounts of water. If swallowed, wash out mouth with water provided person is conscious. Call a physician. Wash contaminated clothing before reuse.'' "Steps to be taken if material is released or spilled - Chemical safety goggles. Use protective clothing, gloves, and mask. Sweep up, place in a bag and hold for waste disposal. Avoid raising dust. Ventilate area and wash spill site after material pickup is complete.'' "Waste disposal method - Dissolve in water and dilute to a 5% solution. Check the pH and adjust it to 7 if necessary. Pour the solution down the drain with running water and continue to flush the drain system for 10 minutes, provided that rules at your place of employment or local, state, and federal guidelines allow you to do so. If you are unable to flush the solution down the drain or in doubt about the suitability of the method, use a licensed waste disposal company. Observe all federal, state, and local laws.'' Is this why Hillary Rodham Clinton avoids making cookies?

I am not a sucrose advocate. I avoid feeding it to children and think that it is not an especially healthful food for adults either - although, in one experiment we conducted, sucrose decreased the rate of growth of skin cancer in mice. This first aid, safety, and disposal "information'' is, however, obviously ridiculous. Why is it included in an otherwise rational scientific document?

It is included because these manufacturers in New Haven, Con-necticut, are evidently frightened that they will be attacked in courtrooms or by government bureaucrats if they provide inadequate warnings. Their lawyers have probably advised them to include draconian warnings on every chemical that they produce - not for the safety of the users, but for their own legal and regulatory safety.

So, why do we not laugh this off in "Stark Raving Mad'' and forget it? After all, who reads safety data sheets anyway? As chemists, we can surely rely on our own knowledge about laboratory dangers. Right? Wrong! There are many special circumstances in which familiar, usually harmless substances can become very dangerous. This sort of practical information is not taught to young scientists today as was ordinarily done two generations ago. "Crying wolf'' in the material data sheets diminishes the chance that safety information will be heeded when it is really necessary.

More importantly, the insinuation of false information into the environment of science undermines the fundamental integrity upon which the intellectual substance of science and technology depends for its survival. Dishonesty is entirely incompatible with scientific inquiry. There will, of course, always be occasional dishonest scientists, but false statements must not be allowed to become an ordinary and tolerated part of scientific discourse. Incorrect statements, whether or not they are inadvertent errors or deliberate lies, must be habitually hunted down and eliminated by scientists.

If intolerance of error is not a routine part of science, progress slows or stops because the errors compound until neither experimental observations nor theoretical constructs are reliable. Moreover, to the extent that science is politically important, tolerance of error turns the facts of science into just another source of controversial opinion -rather than anchors of truth which can be relied upon.

Why shouldn't the peer review grant process encourage exaggeration and falsehoods of omission without which the scientist will lose his support? After all, these proposals just wind up in file cabinets. Everyone understands the game. Why shouldn't safety sheets contain bizarre and false warnings? We all know the reasons. No one pays attention. Why shouldn't scientists cook their results and make exaggerated claims to get their political point of view on the evening news? The opposition does the same thing. This is the real world.

Why should scientists speak up when they see obviously false or exaggerated claims by other scientists about global warming, ozone depletion, acid rain, chemical apocalypse, or species extinction being used to set public policy? After all, false and erroneous statements have become a way of life. We cannot be expected to fight them all.

Every laboratory that receives this sucrose from Eastman Kodak should send it back - with a letter of explanation: "If your safety data is this far wrong, how can we trust your purity data? If your laboratory personnel are no smarter than this, we cannot trust your chemicals as a part of our experiments.'' They would, no doubt, reply that the devil made them do it - one with government horns and a regulatory pitchfork. Fine, make them fight that devil. Science cannot tolerate lies, regardless of their origin.

It is fashionable today to consider uncompromising honesty, strict rules of integrity, inflexible codes of honor, and intolerance of error as obsolete artifacts. Those who exhibit these properties are thought of as troublemakers - politically incorrect throwbacks from the past. Scientific knowledge and the scientific method rest, however, upon the shoulders of people who have these characteristics.

We agree with the data sheet. Lot # 7B0250 of sucrose from East-man Kodak is dangerous - it does not belong in any laboratory.

It has been estimated that the average American eats about 100 pounds of sucrose per year. A reading of grocery store labels, especially if one attempts to buy groceries without added sugar, demonstrates how ubiquitous this substance has become in our food supply.

This was not always so. Prior to recent advances in technology, sucrose was a relatively expensive condiment which could be afforded in only small amounts by ordinary people. It is naturally present in most foods. Unless sucrose is added separately, however, the amounts in food are much lower than those routinely consumed today.

Food is, of course, entirely made up of chemicals. There is not any difference between sucrose contained in sacks of a chemical labeled "sugar'' and sucrose contained in a "healthful'' glass of orange juice. (Orange juice has so much sugar that, during one period of inflated world sugar prices, consideration was given to converting the Florida orange crop into sucrose and selling it for a higher price.) When, however, a chemical substance is extracted from ordinary food and purified before use, several changes can take place - none of which change the fact that the chemical in the food is entirely identical to the same chemical after extraction and purification.

First, substances not normally present in food can be inadvertently added to the chemical during extraction and purification. Second, substances that are normally present with the chemical in the food and are needed for its healthful use can be removed. Third, the amount of the chemical eaten can be altered radically because it is no longer portioned by combination with other substances. This third effect has been large in the case of industrial purification of sucrose. Also, the specific form of a substance has an effect upon its rate of absorption. Carbohydrate supplied as starch releases sugars slowly into the blood stream, while carbohydrate from sugar is released more quickly. This rate of release can have physiological effects.

As shown in Figure 1, sucrose is a dimer of glucose and fructose. Soon after it is eaten, this dimer is hydrolyzed to produce separate glucose and fructose molecules. Fructose, sometimes referred to as "fruit sugar,'' is also contained in many foods. Glucose is even more common. It is a major metabolic constituent, and it has many other uses. For example, cellulose, the primary structural component in many plants, is a polymer of glucose.

It is, as yet, not definitively known whether or not a change in diet in which the intake of sucrose is increased far beyond that to which the human body was previously exposed is harmless, harmful, or beneficial. This is a continuing subject of research. It is a complicated problem because foods are made up of tens of thousands of different chemicals in variable amounts. Also, humans are notoriously difficult research subjects, so controlled experiments are difficult.

Twenty five years ago, a remarkable biochemist, Milton Winitz, developed a completely defined chemical diet upon which humans can live indefinitely. He marketed this diet as "Vivonex 100.'' It may still be available. The Winitz diet was made entirely with purified chemicals - amino acids, vitamins, minerals, fats, and carbohydrates. The amounts of chemicals in the diet could not be optimized for each individual person, since the necessary information was unknown. The formula was an average that supported satisfactory health in most people.

One interesting property of this diet is that it requires no digestion and contains no waste. All of the constituents are physiologically absorbed and utilized as provided. Therefore, an individual eating this diet has no solid waste. The colon just rests with nothing to do. This makes the diet useful in treating some digestive disorders. Experiments showed that this rest was not harmful. After many months of disuse, the colon starts working again as soon as it is given something to do.

The original carbohydrate source in Vivonex 100 was solely glucose. In this form, Vivonex 100 was extensively tested on convict volunteers who were biochemically and physiologically monitored during a prolonged period ingesting only this diet.

One remarkable finding was that, after a few weeks on Vivonex 100, the convicts' average blood cholesterol had dropped to about 150 as compared with about 220 previously. The convicts complained, however, about the monotonous taste of the diet, so Winitz decided to provide a variation. He removed 25% of the glucose and replaced it with sucrose. After this, the average of the convicts' blood cholesterols immediately returned to pre-diet levels.

Winitz found that he could control blood cholesterol over a range of a factor of 1.5 - solely by exchanging glucose for sucrose (or, perhaps, glucose for fructose by way of sucrose). See M. Winitz, D. A. Seed-man, & J. Graff, Am. J. Clin. Nutrition 23, p 525-545 (1970). This work, however, does not mean that sucrose always causes high cholesterol. A complete diet has numerous chemicals - the absolute amounts and ratios of which may affect this result.

In another experiment, when we were studying cancer as a function of diet in mice (See "Suppression of Squamous Cell Carcinoma in Hairless Mice by Dietary Nutrient Variation'' by A. B. Robinson, A. Hunsberger, and F. C. Westall in Mechanisms of Ageing and Development 76, pp 210-214 (1994)), we found that replacement of 20% of the ordinary mouse diet by sucrose (approximately the percentage eaten on average by Americans) reduced the growth rate of cancer by about 20%. This reduction corresponded, however, to the reduction in cancer growth rate also observed when protein intake was reduced by 20% by other means. The sucrose simply replaced some of the protein. Protein is positively correlated to the rate of growth of cancer. A person with cancer should try not to feed the cancer an enriched diet.

Thousands of experiments have been performed on human health and sucrose. Some of these have been interpreted to mean that high sucrose intake raises the probability of heart disease, cancer, mental instability, tooth decay, and numerous other maladies. Other experimenters claim that high sucrose is harmless - that the observed ill effects are caused by accompanying fat intake or other factors. Almost all of the work on both sides of this issue is correlational in nature. Always remember, however, that correlation does not prove causality.

I do not feed sugar to the children because I do not want them to be a part of the currently ongoing grand experiment on high sucrose intake that almost the entire American population is performing on itself. My opinion is that this large arbitrary change in nutrition is more likely to be harmful than helpful and that the mounting evidence against sucrose will eventually include definitive experiments.

I have not, however, ever been able to completely control the addiction to sucrose that I developed as a child. Sugar is definitely addicting, as most adults with a "sweet tooth'' should realize. I occasionally smuggle sucrose-enriched items into my office, and friends also bring this contraband to me. One time, several years ago, I noticed that some of my cookies were disappearing. I questioned the children - thinking that one of them was developing a sweet tooth.

Finally, my oldest son explained the disappearance. He had been gradually removing my cookies and burning them in the stove. He was doing this, he said, because the children had observed that I was more irritable when eating sugar. I experimented with this and found that they were entirely correct. Since then, I have eaten much less sugar.

Even when people try to control their intake of a substance like sucrose, misinformation often proves self-defeating. The enviro industry has promoted a widespread misbelief that "natural'' is always good and "synthetic'' is always bad. They divide chemicals into "natural chemicals'' and "synthetic chemicals'' - a distinction that is entirely without rational meaning. Every material thing that we see around us including our own body is entirely constructed from chemicals of essentially natural origin. Some people eat lots of honey. They think that "natural'' honey is O.K., but "refined'' sugar is not. Honey is, however, just another source of sugars. Aside from the remote possibility that trace substances of special value are provided by honey, there is little difference. Eating honey to avoid sugar is nonsense. Eating artificial sweeteners like aspartame may also be harmful. Habitual use of any substance exposes the user to potential hazards. An ancient saying advises, "Everything in moderation, nothing in excess.'' This applies to sucrose.

Science is critically dependent upon quantitative measurement. Therefore, the units of measure in science have been carefully selected and are closely guarded. It would be unthinkable for the size of a gram, the length of a meter, or the amount of energy in a kilowatt hour to be changed continuously at the whim of individuals or agencies.

The American Founding Fathers knew that commerce, too, depends upon stable units of measure. For this reason, they included the rule that, "No state shall ........make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts,'' Article I, Section 10, United States Constitution. Gold is especially useful, since it is so difficult to obtain. Even with modern technology, the world supply of gold cannot be inflated at an appreciable rate by current production.

Figure 2 is from The Moneychanger 14, No. 12, March, p1 (1996), available from P. O. Box 341753, Memphis, TN 38184-1753. It provides a graph of the Dow Jones Industrial average in United States gold dollars between 1916 and 1995. Conversion of other economic graphs into gold units also improves their information content.

The governmental devaluation of our money by over 90% during the past 50 years has had many effects including the confiscation of savings and disruption of commerce. One additional effect has been to hide the benefits of science and technology from ordinary citizens.

Advances in science and technology have steadily reduced the cost of raw materials and manufactured goods. If our money were constant, we would notice that our savings automatically purchase more as time passes. This would reward savings and would also serve as a daily reminder to everyone of the benefits of science and technology - concrete benefits far more impressive than the hypothetical scare scenarios of antitechnology pseudoenvironmentalists.

Even the claimed government goal of making wholesale and retail prices constant is unfair to savers and technologists. This objective assumes that all technological improvements that reduce the costs of production and thereby reduce the prices of goods should automatically be confiscated by the state. The actual fall in real prices does not reach the citizens whose savings and inventions made it possible.

Continuously changing the size of measuring units would be damaging to science. Playing with the monetary unit has been counterproductive for all Americans - especially those whose work, if more easily observable, would be gratefully celebrated by their peers.

Stimulated by the unexpected results of the Environmental Protection Agency's radon witch hunt and by the actual effects of the Cher-nobyl accident, nuclear power and the radiation it produces is gaining a new, much improved public image. The rapidity of this change, especially evident now in professional publications, is remarkable.

Access to Energy published numerous articles over many years about radiation hormesis, the beneficial health effects of low-level radiation - a largely neglected subject. When, however, Bernard L. Co-hen published his analysis of radon and cancer risk - made possible by the radon scare and subsequent radon measurements in many Ameri-can homes - this effect could no longer be ignored. (See, for example, "Vitamin R?'' and "More Radon'' in Access to Energy 21-4 and 21-8.) Cohen found a cancer inhibitory effect from radon that is comparable in magnitude to the cancer promoting effect from cigarettes. The resulting debate among health physicists is being won by hormesis.

"To the Contrary,'' by Gregg M. Taylor, the lead editorial in Nuclear News, March 1996, p 3, published by the American Nuclear Society, is an example. Taylor writes, "There is growing support among radiation specialists for the view that the biological effects of radiation exposure do not follow a linear path between low and high levels of dose. In fact, some interpret the evidence to imply that low levels of radiation exposure accelerate DNA-repair mechanisms in cells, resulting in a net decreased risk of cancer.'' The experimental evidence is much stronger than Taylor indicates, but this editorial is indicative of the rapid change of established opinion.

"The Radiation Rebellion'' in Nuclear Issues 18, No. 1, p 4, Janu-ary 1996, available from 8 Ruvigny Mansions, Embankment, Putney, London SW15 1LE, also discusses radiation's new image. Listing three influential recent books on hormesis and radiation safety, Nuclear Issues points out that Germany spent $350 million battling Cher-nobyl caused radiation levels - which averaged only 1% above normal background. The surface radiation rise from use of phosphate fertilizers over the ten years since Chernobyl was 5%, five times greater.

The three books are Has Radiation Protection Become a Health Hazard? by Walinder, Health Effects of Low Level Radiation by Kondo, and My Life with Radiation - The Truth about Hiroshima by Ralph Lapp. The Lapp book illustrates the benefits that are being derived from careful studies of very large releases of radioisotopes. The actual health effects from such releases have been quite moderate.

Chernobyl itself is becoming a substantial example of nuclear power safety. (See Nuclear Issues 17, No. 11 and 18, No. 2.) During this accident, a graphite reactor with no containment building melted down and burned, with the result that radioisotopes were spread over a very wide area. Moreover, firefighters and other disaster personnel were utilized with very little regard for their own safety. Involving very improper design and severe human error, the Chernobyl accident is one of the worst nightmares that could possibly occur with a nuclear power plant. After 10 years, what have been the effects?

At the time of the accident, 31 people died - 28 from high doses of radiation and 3 from other effects of the explosion and fire. Also, during the following 10 years, about 700 additional thyroid cancers in children living near Chernobyl have been reported. This value may eventually reach about 1,000. Thyroid cancer is unique because the thyroid gland greatly concentrates iodine. The thyroid glands of children are especially sensitive to radiation damage. Since this cancer responds well to treatment, only three of these children have, so far, died.

This thyroid cancer was caused by iodine-131, which has a half-life of 8 days, so this is a short-term hazard. Moreover, the effects of iodine-131 could have been mitigated by prompt oral administration of blocking doses of iodine, but the Russians did not take this precaution. (See Nuclear War Survival Skills by Cresson H. Kearny available for $12.50 postage-paid from the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, P. O. Box 1279, Cave Junction, OR 97523.) Other than thyroid cancer in children, there has been no observed increase in cancer rates, even in leukemia, in any population - even including those groups that were close to the accident.

Overall, the actual cost in human lives from direct effects of the Chernobyl disaster has been less than one ordinary day of injuries and deaths from highway accidents in the United States.

There has, however, been one much larger human cost as a result, not of the Chernobyl accident itself, but of the self-serving cacophony of propaganda and fear-mongering by the world-wide anti-nuke industry both before and after the disaster. Psychological effects on frightened people have been dramatic. (See "Chernobyl, Cancer, and Creeping Paranoia'' in The Economist, March 9, 1996, pp 81-82.) One example - the birth rate in central Europe dropped by one-third in 1986-1987 as a result of the abortion of children whom the parents feared would be malformed as a result of Chernobyl radiation. No such increases in malformation were, however, observed even in regions close to the accident. So, the accident killed few, but the anti-nuke propaganda killed tens of thousands of children and caused very widespread psychological suffering.

As the actual results of this radiological disaster become widely known, fear of nuclear power should diminish. This is especially so as a result of the fortuitous circumstance that low levels of radiation are increasingly being recognized as a health benefit.

We are a long distance from the time when we shall be permitted to mix a little power plant waste with the foundations of new homes in Oregon to bring the low background radiation here up to a more healthful level, but we are on our way. Both the radon scare and the Chernobyl disaster are now helping to increase our rate of progress.

If you followed Access to Energy's earlier recommendation to buy Why We Will NEVER Win the War on AIDS by Brian J. Ellison and Peter H. Duesberg, you may soon have a rare collector's item. Media Bypass Magazine, March 1996, p 42 (available by calling 1-800-4-Bypass) reports that New York Federal Judge John E. Sprizzo has ordered all existing copies of the book destroyed.

We do not claim to have an understanding of the condition that is called "AIDS,'' but the ongoing attack on Peter Duesberg and other scientists who have questioned the hypothesis that HIV virus causes AIDS is reprehensible. Also, the multibillion dollar HIV-AIDS industry with 100,000 tax-financed research papers published and still little or no practical progress - not even proof that HIV causes AIDS - is highly suspect. Therefore, even without reference to the specifics of their scientific arguments (which are quite credible), we recommended this book and sponsored a lecture by Peter Duesberg at the DDP meeting last year. His presentation was excellent. (Audio tapes are available from DDP, 2509 N. Campbell, Box 272, Tucson, AZ 85719.)

This book is especially interesting because it not only gives evidence against the HIV-AIDS hypothesis and in support of an alternative possibility, it describes Peter Duesberg's persecution by the tax-financed research establishment. This is of special significance because Duesberg is a member of the National Academy of Sciences who gained his scientific reputation in the study of retroviruses like HIV. In this context, the book is also an exposé of the corrupt inner workings of the federal medical research program.

The wheels of "justice'' turn slowly, so 20,000 copies were sold before the book burning was ordered. Ellison's attorney is quoted as saying, "There is no question that this decision represents a radical departure from two hundred years of American legal tradition.''

The West Penn Power Company in Pennsylvania has notified its customers that it is seeking to pay Mon Valley Energy Limited Partnership $31 million to not build an 80-megawatt power plant. West Penn says that this $31 million, which it plans to add to customer power bills, will avoid a $665 million dollar future loss by purchase of power from the Mon Partnership at higher than market rates. West Penn would be forced to purchase this power under the federal Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act and its implementing bureaucracy.

Therefore, our government will force the citizens of Pennsylvania to pay the Mon Valley Project to not produce electricity.
"The Dumbing Down of Higher Education'' by William E. Si-mon in The Wall Street Journal, March 19, p A14, reports that 15 million students attend American colleges and universities at an annual cost of $170 billion. Of 50 leading undergraduate institutions in 1993: 34% required courses in natural sciences - down from 90% in 1964; 12% required math courses - down from 36% in 1964; and an average of 156 classroom days were required - down from 191 in 1964.

"Multicultural'' and "politically correct and relevant'' courses are replacing traditional education in history, literature, economics, and the other humanities. For example, the "liberal arts'' requirement for all students at Oregon State University must be met by taking one course each from seven lists including "Western Culture,'' "Cultural Diversity,'' Literature and the Arts,'' "Social Processes and Institutions,'' "Difference, Power, and Discrimination,'' "Contemporary Global Issues,'' and "Science, Technology, and Society.'' These lists include about 60 courses that teach the new rages in social engineering. Ore-gon State still requires science by nonscience majors - one course each in physical science and biology - about 4% of total class hours.

The New American, April 1, 1996, p 40, reports that an estimated 30% of CFC sales in the United States are now on the black market. It is reported elsewhere that freon smuggling is so lucrative and extensive that it is beginning to interfere with the smuggling of illicit drugs. Our government may finally have found a way to win the war on drug smuggling - just make lots of other substances illegal, too.

"The Eagle's Nest'' by Samantha Parker in Sky & Telescope, February 1996, pp 32-34. These Hubble Space Telescope images of interstellar clouds in the Eagle Nebula, 7,000 light years from earth, are spectacular.

"Chess Champion Sinks Deep Blue's Figuring'' by I. Peterson in Science News 149, February 24, 1996, p 119. Kasparov maintained his superiority in chess over the IBM computer by 3 wins, 2 ties, and 1 loss. He did this by learning the computer's weaknesses during the first game, which he lost.

"1995: Maybe it Wasn't Such a Hot Year, After All'' by Sallie Baliunas in Citizen Outlook 11, No. 1, March/April 1996, available from P. O. Box 65722, Washington, DC 20035. This is a short, concise article for the layman showing that the crisis scenario global warming predictions are not in agreement with experiment and that actual warming can be expected to be insignificant.

"Grand Opening, Japan Starts World's First Advanced Reactor'' in Nuclear Energy Insight 96, February 1996, pp 1-4, available from the Nuclear Energy Institute, 1776 I Street, NW, Suite 400, Washing-ton, DC 20006-3708. Japan built and brought this power plant into operation in 52 months.

"Research Attacks Immune System Theory'' by J. E. Bishop in The Wall Street Journal, March 22 (1996), p B5. This new hypothesis suggests that the immune system is activated by specific danger signals rather than by learning the difference between self and nonself as has been believed for half a century. If this should turn out to be correct, it would have remarkable ramifications in medical science.

Science Without Sense, The Risky Business of Public Health Research by Steven Milloy published by the Cato Institute, 1000 Massa-chusetts Ave., N.W., Washington, DC 20001. This is a hilarious "guide'' for the young professional wishing to make a career in risk assessment and public health. It would be even funnier if so much of the author's advice were not excruciatingly correct.

"A New Dawn for Sun-Climate Links?'' by Richard A. Kerr, Science 271, pp 1360-1361, 8 March 1996. Complete with a graph showing correlation between the Earth's temperature and the Sun's activity, this article demonstrates that more scientists are inching toward a realization that the weather is warmer when the Sun shines more brightly, which has previously been recognized by only a select few.