Health Benefits of Carbon-14: Plant vs Artificial

  • Thread starter Thread starter ldv1452
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Carbon Health
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the perception that plant-derived compounds are inherently healthier than synthetic alternatives. It highlights that the primary difference between these compounds is the presence of carbon-14, which is found in higher amounts in natural sources. However, the levels of carbon-14 are negligible and not a health threat, suggesting that synthetic compounds might actually be safer due to their lower radioactive content. The conversation emphasizes that natural substances often contain impurities, while synthetic compounds are pure and rigorously tested for safety. This contrasts with the common belief that 'natural' equates to safety and quality, a notion largely shaped by marketing. The argument also acknowledges that while natural flavors can be superior due to their complex profiles, the idea that all natural substances are harmless is flawed, as many natural products can be toxic. The discussion concludes with a recognition of the importance of phytochemicals in fruits and vegetables and the potential benefits of natural food delivery systems for nutrient absorption, yet it challenges the oversimplified view that natural equals safe.
ldv1452
Messages
69
Reaction score
0
Many people believe that plant-derived compounds are healthier than their "identical" artifical petrochemical counterparts. The only difference however is the amount of carbon-14 (more carbon 14 compounds from plant-dervied sources). So if anything, in this regard, wouldn't the artifical compounds be safer having less radioactive carbon-14? I say this in terms of the logic they use, to my knowledge those levels of carbon-14 are not a threat anyway.
 
Chemistry news on Phys.org
14C only exists in trace amounts even to begin with, and has a very long half-life. You could do the math as an exercise if you like, but I'm overwhelmingly certain that 14C decay are completely negligible in comparison to the rest of the background radiation around us.

That said, artificial compounds are safer for a much simpler reason. Natural substances are typically impure. To pick an example, vanilla extract probably has hundreds if not thousands of compounds in it, whereas synthesized vanillin is a pure chemical. And it's safe; every compound in synthetic food additives are tested for safety, which is not the case for natural foodstuffs. (If they did, we all know that every single food out there would be found to contain plenty of "harmful chemicals". It's just that people don't think about stuff that way).

As any chemist knows, it's all just irrational prejudice, largely created by marketing. People associate 'chemical' with something dangerous and toxic, even though everything is a 'chemical'. They associate 'synthetic' and 'artificial' with the idea of inferior quality, although the concept of 'quality' has no meaning if you're comparing molecules. And marketing drums into people that 'natural' is something good, even though almost everything could be termed 'natural', including most of the most dangerous toxins known to man.

Of course in my particular example, natural vanilla is better, because a lot of those compounds contribute to the flavor. I think much of the above associations come from the singular product category of artificial flavors, since that's the one area where the chemically-synthesized product usually really is both cheaper and inferior.
 
I think this is a highly important area that I'd like to learn more about. I always had a problem with the argument some people make that anything that is natural is harmless (this argument even gets used for marijuana). It is so ingrained in society though that people view natural as good, as you said, that it is nearly impossible to convince most people otherwise. There are a few arguments that I've heard though that are intriguing. The first is that fruits and vegetables include phytochemicals important to health that you do not get from artificial foods/supplements. The second is that even if the compounds are the same themselves, that natural foods are better because of the delivery system (e.g., vitamins and minerals are better absorbed when ingested through food...perhaps due to the fiber or some other component not in the supplement).
 
ldv1452 said:
I always had a problem with the argument some people make that anything that is natural is harmless

Sure, tell them to eat some castor bean seeds. Or deadly nightshade fruits. Or water hemlock root. Or oleander. You will not have to argue with them ever again.
 
It seems like a simple enough question: what is the solubility of epsom salt in water at 20°C? A graph or table showing how it varies with temperature would be a bonus. But upon searching the internet I have been unable to determine this with confidence. Wikipedia gives the value of 113g/100ml. But other sources disagree and I can't find a definitive source for the information. I even asked chatgpt but it couldn't be sure either. I thought, naively, that this would be easy to look up without...
I was introduced to the Octet Rule recently and make me wonder, why does 8 valence electrons or a full p orbital always make an element inert? What is so special with a full p orbital? Like take Calcium for an example, its outer orbital is filled but its only the s orbital thats filled so its still reactive not so much as the Alkaline metals but still pretty reactive. Can someone explain it to me? Thanks!!
Back
Top