Incredible ..... solid water!

[Did67]

- The example of latex has already been given => although the components of this polymer are soluble in water, why then do they not mix with it? Well, it is precisely the whole elementary principle of polymerization!

I think that you are going a little fast, to support your reasoning:

- polymerization = condensation into long chains of simpler molecules. Ex: polyethylene: a large number of these small molecules in C2 (ethylene) gives a long molecule = polyethylene; or again, in the natural field, starch is a polymer of glucose

Some polymers have a network structure and adsorption capacity (on the surface) with electrical charges (such as activated carbon). But not all.

latex is an emulsion, it is not a homogeneous body; like milk, which is an aqueous solution, with lactose, proteins, including casein, etc ... and a fat (cream) dispersed in multiple micro-droplets, which, in the long run, go back to the surface (cream) or which can be separated by phyisque (centrifugation).

Milk casein can polymerize to form plastics, which have not been very successful (lactitre, caseite, etc.)

Some components of the latex coagulate ...

But I still do not see the relationship with this powder and water.

[Did67]

Just note that with this invention there is no more alibi possible, that's what I meant ...

With tens of millions of people suffering from obesity and cardiovascular disease, and dying of it, and hundreds of millions starving and dying of water, there is no way alibi!

There is egoism, everyone in their corner and in their logic ...

[Obamot]

Yes that's it.

For the rest, the latex was given only as a purely exemplary, to relativize the dangerousness (not even supposed of me) of the substrate, to show that nature also produces substances not very healthy while they have the reputation of being a priori. We do not count the natural toxins that remain in cooking water in particular, and not many people speak!

I did not have a direct link between latex and polymer, for example.

[Did67]

OKAY. I understand better now.

And am 100% agree.

Anything that is synthetic is not dangerous: eg silicone, widely used for certain sprotheses, is particularly "neutral". Other than hemlock or curare, or even opium, natural, are particularly toxic.

And for the record, glyphosate (the active ingredient of Monsanto's famous Roundup) has a DL50 superior to ... emer salt. In other words, the dose needed to kill 50% of a rat sample is much higher than that of salt!

This is part of one of my reservations about the dogma that founds biogical agriculture: what is synthetic is rejected; what is of natural origin is accepted.

[that said, I consume as much "organic" as possible, for other reasons; and I grow "more than organic" - without product if possible; but if I have to treat I sometimes use a synthetic narrow specter pyrethrinoid rather than a natural broad spectrum rotenone; but my garden would not be certified, suddenly!].

[moinsdewatt]

J .......
6) The designer - as a chemist - declares that the water molecules are not denatured. By his patent, he commits his responsibility ... He must know what he is talking about!

No.

You can patent anything (except anticipation). The role of the patent agencies is in no way to prevent the inventor of any liability whatsoever.

[moinsdewatt]

.....
If we really wanted to put hunger in the end, we would rain directly in the desert (there are patents for that).

and also about patents it is still very funny.

[Ahmed]

Did67, you write:

And for the record, glyphosate (the active ingredient of Monsanto's famous Roundup) has a higher DL50 than ... sea salt

This is obviously a bit off topic, but this sentence calls for two remarks.
1 - the safety test you are referring to only measures short-term toxicity; a lot of products having obtained excellent results in the past are now banned because of the medium and long-term toxicity (eg the selective weed killer of corn, well known under the name of Simazine, endocrine disruptor, just like the phytocides 2-4D and 2-4-5-T).
2- It is known that it is an adjuvant of glyphosate (active ingredient of Round-up) which is mainly problematic, but this adjuvant without which glyphosate is perfectly ineffective has not been tested for its authorization to marketing.

Currently, given the potential activity of chemicals at very low doses and over long periods of time, the definition of "acceptable daily intake" (admirable formula!) Is a scholar (?) Compromise between incomplete scientific data and business interests.

[moinsdewatt]

Yes, + 1 for Ahmed

[Obamot]

And -1 for Lessdewatt

J .......
6) The designer - as a chemist - declares that the water molecules are not denatured. By his patent, he commits his responsibility ... He must know what he is talking about!

No.

You can patent anything (except anticipation). The role of the patent agencies is in no way to prevent the inventor of any liability whatsoever.

Yes.

He commits him from the moment he starts - or is involved (which obviously seems to be the case) - himself in production and / or until marketing.

And since REACH:
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enregistre ... _chimiques

The new regulation is progressively aimed at eliminating the most dangerous chemical substances in the European Union. For that, the burden of proving the safety of commonly used chemicals is reversed: it is up to the industry (and the importer) to demonstrate the safety of these substances to humans and nature, by studies on risks to human health and the environment, before they are placed on the market or used.

Every producer of chemicals has to prove that the new molecules he puts on the market are safe.

But once again, we surf on the inexistence of understanding the correct priorities in a global approach of the problems, for some in this thread!

When we hear for example, some say that their food bowl is correct, "because they followed the advice of their doctor recommending them to drink 2 liters per day including milk for calcium". Or they take "margarine and asparthame so as not to gain weight"or use tefelon stoves to cook at low temperatures because grilling meat is carcinogenic, you can only smile.

They will all end up with many more harmful or even harmful substances in their body (in the medium or long term depending on the case). And for some impossible to extract like formaldehyde!

And products like Roundup or Nutrasweet, combine health damage. But behind, the same agrochemical companies that produce them, offer you a panel of drugs to ... treat you after poisoning you! And this directly or through their subsidiaries.

So one would have to know reason to keep and stop talking about a non-existent problem for this formula of aggregation of water in gel form. It's a total nonsense amha. Or we should bring evidence.

[bamboo]

Every producer of chemicals has to prove that the new molecules he puts on the market are safe.

It is probably proven that plastic water bottles are harmless to those who drink water. Moreover, they do not transform water molecules.
And yet, by dint of being stored in these bottles, water accumulates plastic particles: the molecules are not transformed. There are just more molecules in the middle of H2O ...
Il peut be the same for your gel.

use tefelon stoves to cook at low temperatures because grilling meat is cancerogenic one can only smile.

They will all end up with many more harmful or even harmful substances in their body (in the medium or long term depending on the case). And for some impossible to extract like formaldehyde!

Absolutely.