Discussion:
Sandalwood Poisonous?
(too old to reply)
Curious
2004-08-21 05:24:18 UTC
Permalink
Is sandalwood poisonous if eaten?
P van Rijckevorsel
2004-08-21 07:31:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Curious
Is sandalwood poisonous if eaten?
* * *
I can't really say and I doubt if anybody could.
However, on the whole poisonous woods are ususally most dangerous if the
poison is extracted first or if the wood is divided into very small
particles (by sanding and such) and can be breathed in. On the whole wood
itself is not digested, meaning that the stuff in the wood stays in. However
IIRC there are a few woods that are poisonous to the touch (when fresh), and
quite a few more that cause allergic reactions (susceptibility varies).

I would expect sandalwood not to be poisonous when eaten, but strongly
suggest you don't try to test this (it costs like crazy too).
PvR
P van Rijckevorsel
2004-08-21 08:32:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Curious
Is sandalwood poisonous if eaten?
* * *
Another aspect is poisonous to whom?
Things harmless to humans can be poisonous to pets. Apparently chocolate can
be lethal to dogs, and avocado fruits to birds. Woods guaranteed to be
non-poisonous when ingested are a fairly hot topic for bird owners, wanting
to put sticks, roosts, etc in with their bird.

A few woods are known to be poisonous when ingested (black walnut to horses
is often mentioned, as is yew to apparently everybody).
PvR.
Gautam Majumdar
2004-08-21 11:45:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Curious
Is sandalwood poisonous if eaten?
Can't say about sandalwood as a whole but sandalwood oil is not poisonous
to humans. It is used in various medicinal preparations of the Ayurvedic
(ancient Indian) system.
--
Gautam Majumdar

Please send e-mails to ***@freeuk.com
Phred
2004-08-21 13:27:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gautam Majumdar
Post by Curious
Is sandalwood poisonous if eaten?
Can't say about sandalwood as a whole but sandalwood oil is not poisonous
to humans. It is used in various medicinal preparations of the Ayurvedic
(ancient Indian) system.
Geez mate, that hardly proves it's not poisonous!

In fact, many lethal compounds are used in medicine for the very
reason that they are extremely biologically active. I hardly need
mention they need to be used with precision and caution. :)

Mind you, it's possible that sandalwood oil is relatively safe.
Indeed there is some data on the Australian product from _Santalum
spicatum_ that has found no serious problems:
http://www.aromarich.btinternet.co.uk/sandalwood2.html

But, mind you again, that page is from an aromatherapy site, so
perhaps should itself be taken with a grain of salt. ;-) E.g. see:
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~nodice/new/bollocks/bollocksbooks7.
htm

At http://www.wrc.net/phyto/Chandana.html there is an indication of
possible toxic effects from _S. album_ oil:
<quoting>
Toxicity: Possible cytochrome p-450 inducement in high doses long term
(Jones et al 1994). Essential oil reported to have a "baneful effect
upon the kidneys" in larger doses (Nadkarni 1976, 1102).
</quoting>

The references are given on that page -- and it might be noted that
the article by Jones et al. actually referred to quandong (_Santalum
acuminatum_).

Cheers, Phred.
--
***@THISyahoo.com.INVALID
Gautam Majumdar
2004-08-22 07:43:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phred
Post by Gautam Majumdar
Post by Curious
Is sandalwood poisonous if eaten?
Can't say about sandalwood as a whole but sandalwood oil is not
poisonous to humans. It is used in various medicinal preparations of the
Ayurvedic (ancient Indian) system.
Geez mate, that hardly proves it's not poisonous!
In fact, many lethal compounds are used in medicine for the very reason
that they are extremely biologically active. I hardly need mention they
need to be used with precision and caution. :)
I agree; whether something is harmful to use depends mainly on the dose.
Some of our cherished food supplements, even essential neutrients such as
Vitamin A, could cause harm and even death if taken in large doses. But we
don't call them poisonous because they are not harmful when used in
intended ways.
Post by Phred
Mind you, it's possible that sandalwood oil is relatively safe. Indeed
there is some data on the Australian product from _Santalum spicatum_
http://www.aromarich.btinternet.co.uk/sandalwood2.html
Sandalwood oil is used by many people in the Indian subcontinent for skin
conditions, both for medicinal and cosmetic purposes. It is not used
internally excepting in minute quantities in some Ayurvedic medicine.

When I said that it is not poisonous, I meant these uses. It may not be
safe if somebody drinks a litre of it.
Post by Phred
At http://www.wrc.net/phyto/Chandana.html there is an indication of
possible toxic effects from _S. album_ oil: <quoting> Toxicity: Possible
cytochrome p-450 inducement in high doses long term (Jones et al 1994).
Essential oil reported to have a "baneful effect upon the kidneys" in
larger doses (Nadkarni 1976, 1102). </quoting>
The references are given on that page -- and it might be noted that the
article by Jones et al. actually referred to quandong (_Santalum
acuminatum_).
--
Gautam Majumdar

Please send e-mails to ***@freeuk.com
Phred
2004-08-22 13:09:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gautam Majumdar
Post by Phred
Post by Gautam Majumdar
Post by Curious
Is sandalwood poisonous if eaten?
Can't say about sandalwood as a whole but sandalwood oil is not
poisonous to humans. It is used in various medicinal preparations of the
Ayurvedic (ancient Indian) system.
Geez mate, that hardly proves it's not poisonous!
In fact, many lethal compounds are used in medicine for the very reason
that they are extremely biologically active. I hardly need mention they
need to be used with precision and caution. :)
I agree; whether something is harmful to use depends mainly on the dose.
Some of our cherished food supplements, even essential neutrients such as
Vitamin A, could cause harm and even death if taken in large doses. But we
don't call them poisonous because they are not harmful when used in
intended ways.
G'day again mate,

Somewhat off-topic in s.b.botany but your mention of Vitamin A
reminded me of the likely cause of disaster in one of the early
Antarctic expeditions. They were pretty much starving and started
eating the dogs. This included the liver, so it's reasonably
suspected at least one poor bloke finally died of Vitamin A poisoning!

<quoting from http://www.aad.gov.au/default.asp?casid=7043>
Mawson himself led the 'Far Eastern' sledging expedition with Belgrave
Ninnis, a Swiss doctor, and Xavier Mertz, an English army lieutenant.
The expedition was five weeks old and 500 km out when disaster struck:
Ninnis, with one of the two sleds and most of the party's supplies,
was lost down an immense crevasse. Mertz was to die on the return
journey, possibly from Vitamin A poisoning from eating the livers of
husky dogs. But Mawson survived after an epic solo journey during
which he had to haul himself on the end of a rope out of a deep
crevasse. It was one of the great polar stories of survival.
</quoting>
Post by Gautam Majumdar
Post by Phred
Mind you, it's possible that sandalwood oil is relatively safe. Indeed
there is some data on the Australian product from _Santalum spicatum_
http://www.aromarich.btinternet.co.uk/sandalwood2.html
Sandalwood oil is used by many people in the Indian subcontinent for skin
conditions, both for medicinal and cosmetic purposes. It is not used
internally excepting in minute quantities in some Ayurvedic medicine.
When I said that it is not poisonous, I meant these uses. It may not be
safe if somebody drinks a litre of it.
Post by Phred
At http://www.wrc.net/phyto/Chandana.html there is an indication of
possible toxic effects from _S. album_ oil: <quoting> Toxicity: Possible
cytochrome p-450 inducement in high doses long term (Jones et al 1994).
Essential oil reported to have a "baneful effect upon the kidneys" in
larger doses (Nadkarni 1976, 1102). </quoting>
The references are given on that page -- and it might be noted that the
article by Jones et al. actually referred to quandong (_Santalum
acuminatum_).
Cheers, Phred.
--
***@THISyahoo.com.INVALID
b***@cs.toronto.no-uce.edu.yyz
2004-08-21 13:36:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gautam Majumdar
Post by Curious
Is sandalwood poisonous if eaten?
Can't say about sandalwood as a whole but sandalwood oil is not poisonous
to humans. It is used in various medicinal preparations of the Ayurvedic
(ancient Indian) system.
As with almost anything, the dose makes the poison.

A few minutes with google reveals that for the oil of Santalum album
the oral LD50 in rats is 5580 mg/kg and the skin LD50 is 5.00 g/kg. I
don't know why they don't standardize the units, but as far as acute
toxicity you'd have to drink a cup or two to poison yourself to death
with it, and you'd probably die of intestinal impaction before you
could eat enough sandalwood sawdust to kill you.

That said, unsurprisingly the oil is an irritant to
skin, eyes and mucous membranes, and people can develop an allergic
reaction to it. More interesting is that it's believed to have some
kidney toxicity, and has been established to induce cytochrome P-450 in
the liver and also act as a cyclooxygenase inhibitor. This means that
it can potentiate, antagonize or interfere with a lot of different
prescription drugs and as a diuretic may cause hypokalemia especially
in conjunction with other drugs.

The US FDA rates it as GRAS (generally recognized as safe) as a food,
drug or cosmetic additive. GRAS mainly means that it's been in use for
a long time as such without any evident harm caused by it, although it
hasn't been formally tested for safety. It appears that no research
has been done on long-term issues like mutagenicity, carcinogenicity or
teratogenicity, or effects of prolonged high dosages on any organs or
systems. There is some research indicating anti-fungal and
anti-bacterial action, unsurprising since that's probably its function
in the plant.

What little science I can find was mostly done with S.album, but there
are a lot of other species used. It's been overharvested in India, so
a lot of sandalwood and sandalwood oil now comes from S.spicatum in
Australia, and from other species elsewhere. Essential oils (mainly
terpenes) have a wide range of medicinal and toxic effects, and may
vary quite a lot between species.

Since there's no authority to guarantee purity, sandalwood oil is often
adulterated with other materials, notably castor oil, and other woods
treated with sandalwood oil are sold as sandalwood.

At any rate, used sensibly neither the wood nor the oil are likely to
harm you, but don't get carried away. Even the innumerable web sites
that sell the stuff for its vaguely medical and magical properties have
enough sense to recommend caution, even if they can't agree whether its
"ruling planet" is the moon or Uranus.

While sorting through the swamp of entrepreneurial new age sites google
turned up, I ran into a paper describing some research testing 53
different essential oils for their insecticidal effect on a
particularly troublesome species of white fly in greenhouses in Korea.
About half the oils tested had an 80% or better kill rate on eggs, and
some had good effect against adults. One of the best was peppermint
oil. This is encouraging since some of these greenhouse species have
developed resistance against most chemical insecticides, and white fly
is a big problem on edible crops like greenhouse tomatoes where
limiting pesticide residues is very important.

Of course, any discussion of herbal remedies these days has to have
personal anecdotes to prove a point. I've been using a rather nice
sandalwood scented soap from China for many years and I'm not dead
yet. It's denser than the North American soaps because it doesn't have
air whipped into it to make it float, so it doesn't dissolve away as
fast in the shower. It's cheap, too. I like the scent a lot. But my
husband finds that it aggravates a chronic skin condition he has, so he
uses Ivory now. There's no telling if it's the sandalwood or another
ingredient at fault, however. Or maybe there's an astrological
incompatibility, right?
Curious
2004-08-26 03:42:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gautam Majumdar
Post by Curious
Is sandalwood poisonous if eaten?
Can't say about sandalwood as a whole but sandalwood oil is not poisonous
to humans. It is used in various medicinal preparations of the Ayurvedic
(ancient Indian) system.
I was thinking of making a thin watery drink with the following whole
ingredients [raw, natural, organic, un-processed, solid, all products
whole and not juiced] with my VitaMix blender:

1. Sandalwood
2. Licorice
3. Betal Leaf [Paan]
4. Mints [peppermint, spearmint, wintergreen, etc.]
5. Garlic
6. Cinnamon
7. Ginger
8. Tamarind
9. Anice
10. Parsley
11. Holy Basil [Tulsi]
12. Scallions
13. Lime
14. Lemon
15. Mustard Leaves
16. Lavender
17. Rose petals
18. Parrot Tulip petals
19. Turmeric


The flavors/aromas should be equally strong. This means that less
amounts of the stronger-flavored/stronger-aroma plants should be used.
Another thing in consideration is the causticity -- paan, ginger and
some of the others have caustic qualities. The higher the causticity
of the plant the less of it should be added.

I might add some other plants!
Monique Reed
2004-08-26 14:33:15 UTC
Permalink
Why?

M. Reed
Post by Curious
I was thinking of making a thin watery drink with the following whole
ingredients [raw, natural, organic, un-processed, solid, all products
1. Sandalwood
2. Licorice
3. Betal Leaf [Paan]
4. Mints [peppermint, spearmint, wintergreen, etc.]
5. Garlic
6. Cinnamon
7. Ginger
8. Tamarind
9. Anice
10. Parsley
11. Holy Basil [Tulsi]
12. Scallions
13. Lime
14. Lemon
15. Mustard Leaves
16. Lavender
17. Rose petals
18. Parrot Tulip petals
19. Turmeric
The flavors/aromas should be equally strong. This means that less
amounts of the stronger-flavored/stronger-aroma plants should be used.
Another thing in consideration is the causticity -- paan, ginger and
some of the others have caustic qualities. The higher the causticity
of the plant the less of it should be added.
I might add some other plants!
Christopher Green
2004-08-26 20:15:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Monique Reed
Why?
M. Reed
Because it's a drinkable Dagwood sandwich?
--
Also puzzled,

Chris Green
Curious
2004-08-28 02:54:53 UTC
Permalink
Why?
I like the clean feeling it would give. I would this to be my meals. A
meal's amount for breakfast, a meal's amount for lunch, and a meal's
amount for dinner.
P van Rijckevorsel
2004-08-28 07:50:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Curious
I like the clean feeling it would give. I would this to be my meals. A
meal's amount for breakfast, a meal's amount for lunch, and a meal's
amount for dinner.
* * *
A religious ritual?
PvR
Iris Cohen
2004-08-28 13:34:33 UTC
Permalink
With that concoction, I doubt if you would feel clean. You would more likely
feel pretty sick. Better talk to your doctor.
Iris,
Central NY, Zone 5a, Sunset Zone 40
"If we see light at the end of the tunnel, It's the light of the oncoming
train."
Robert Lowell (1917-1977)
Monique Reed
2004-08-30 14:31:34 UTC
Permalink
You want this to be your only source of nourishment? I think perhaps
you might want to consult a nutritionist. You will will be deficient
in protein and probably other essential parts of a balanced diet.

M. Reed
Post by Curious
Why?
I like the clean feeling it would give. I would this to be my meals. A
meal's amount for breakfast, a meal's amount for lunch, and a meal's
amount for dinner.
--
ÿWPC5
P van Rijckevorsel
2004-08-30 14:54:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Monique Reed
You want this to be your only source of nourishment? I think perhaps
you might want to consult a nutritionist. You will will be deficient
in protein and probably other essential parts of a balanced diet.
* * *
Deficient is not the right word.
Just about anything necessary is absent, except (likely) water.
I would not want to guarantee that it does contain enough water.
It is either meant as a method of fasting or as a magic / religious method
to derive nutrition from another dimension.
PvR
Christopher Green
2004-08-31 04:26:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Curious
Post by Gautam Majumdar
Post by Curious
Is sandalwood poisonous if eaten?
Can't say about sandalwood as a whole but sandalwood oil is not poisonous
to humans. It is used in various medicinal preparations of the Ayurvedic
(ancient Indian) system.
I was thinking of making a thin watery drink with the following whole
ingredients [raw, natural, organic, un-processed, solid, all products
1. Sandalwood
On the FDA's Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) list. Toxic doses are
so enormous that no one is likely to ingest anything like enough to be
troublesome.
Post by Curious
2. Licorice
Also GRAS. Good for you in small quantities. Larger quantities of
glycyrrhizin, the active principle, have been known to cause edema and
are moderately estrogenic.
Post by Curious
3. Betal Leaf [Paan]
Chewing betel (paan, paan masala) is a significant cause of cancer in
Asian countries where this is a practice. Making a steady diet of any
significant amount of it would be unwise at best.
Post by Curious
4. Mints [peppermint, spearmint, wintergreen, etc.]
Mostly safe. Salicylates (wintergreen) and pennyroyal (in the mint
family) are toxic if overconsumed. Pennyroyal is especially dangerous
for pregnant women.
Post by Curious
5. Garlic
OK for humans, but known to be toxic (in fairly large doses) to dogs
and cats.
Post by Curious
6. Cinnamon
Irritating if used regularly in quantity. Some cases of mouth cancer
have been linked to long-term, large-quantity use of cinnamon chewing
gum.
Post by Curious
7. Ginger
Safe and generally good for you. Contact dermatitis or allergy can be
a problem for people who handle ginger regularly.
Post by Curious
8. Tamarind
Safe and good for you even in large quantities.
Post by Curious
9. Anice
Safe in reasonable quantities.
Post by Curious
10. Parsley
Parsley as an herb is fine. Parsley oil must be used with caution and
in moderation, and pregnant women should not take it at all.
Post by Curious
11. Holy Basil [Tulsi]
Safe in all quantities that appear to have been tested. Seems to have
much value as an antioxidant.
Post by Curious
12. Scallions
As with garlic, OK for humans, but be careful with cats and dogs
around.
Post by Curious
13. Lime
14. Lemon
Safe in the quantities anyone could reasonably ingest.
Post by Curious
15. Mustard Leaves
Safe except in large quantities, but I'm surprised anybody finds them
palatable in any quantity.
Post by Curious
16. Lavender
Safe, except for pregnant women.
Post by Curious
17. Rose petals
Safe, so long as the roses have not been treated with pesticides.
Post by Curious
18. Parrot Tulip petals
Allergic reactions are not uncommon; otherwise, these are safe. As
with roses, be sure the plants were not treated with pesticides.
Post by Curious
19. Turmeric
Safe even in large quantities.

[snip]

A few of the items in your list are not entirely safe, but only
dangerous in large quantity or long-term use. Betel (paan) is the most
dangerous, but not very. Some of these are definitely inappropriate
for pregnant women.

But a "thin, watery drink" of this stuff would meet just about none of
the nutritional needs of anybody. Overall, this sounds like a Really
Bad Idea. What sources have led you to believe that a diet of this
would be good for you?
--
Chris Green
b***@cs.toronto.no-uce.edu.yyz
2004-08-31 16:12:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher Green
Post by Curious
2. Licorice
Also GRAS. Good for you in small quantities. Larger quantities of
glycyrrhizin, the active principle, have been known to cause edema and
are moderately estrogenic.
It also causes and exacerbates hypertension in large quantities or taken
regularly. For this reason, "licorice" candy is now made with aniseed
instead. The mechanism is by inhibiting an enzyme in the corticosteroid
system, causing the kidney to retain water and sodium, and excrete potassium.

Not only can licorice precipitate strokes and other hypertension related
effects, but the associated hypokalemia can cause heart arrythmias and
other EKG changes in otherwise healthy people, as well as muscle weakness,
increased thirst and increased urination.

There are many reports of "treatment-resistant" hypertension caused by
consumption of large quantities of old style licorice candy, licorice tea
or herbal remedies containing a lot of licorice root taken regularly.
Post by Christopher Green
But a "thin, watery drink" of this stuff would meet just about none of
the nutritional needs of anybody. Overall, this sounds like a Really
Bad Idea. What sources have led you to believe that a diet of this
would be good for you?
Post by Curious
I was thinking of making a thin watery drink with the following whole
ingredients [raw, natural, organic, un-processed, solid, all products
The irrational belief that nature is benign and plants are there for human
benefit, while technology is evil, and its products are designed to make
money at the expense of the environment and human health has become so
widespread as to be the unconscious basis of thought and decision making
about health for many people. There's a *lot* of money to be made pandering
to this mindset, and key words like raw, natural, organic, unprocessed, whole,
etc. are a characteristic part. People are afraid of "drugs", but "herbs"
are "natural", untouched by evil "processing" and therefore intrinsically
good, provided by kindly Mother Nature to heal all our ills, unlike the
doctors and pharmaceutical companies that just want to profit from our
suffering.

I could go on for pages about the problems with these beliefs, but I won't.
They are part of a powerful trend toward magical thinking and rejection of
science and rational thought which has been building up for decades in the
US, and has profound effects on that country, its citizens and the world it
dominates.

At least the poster didn't include natural herbs like tobacco, potato leaves,
foxglove and oleander in his proposed brew, nor wish to add natural minerals
like lead, cadmium, mercury, antimony and arsenic.
P van Rijckevorsel
2004-08-31 18:03:24 UTC
Permalink
to add natural minerals like lead, cadmium, mercury, antimony and arsenic.
* * *
Surely in the popular mind these minerals are firmly connected to either
chemistry or alchemy and are not "natural".
PvR
Curious
2004-09-03 03:49:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@cs.toronto.no-uce.edu.yyz
The irrational belief that nature is benign and plants are there for human
benefit, while technology is evil, and its products are designed to make
money at the expense of the environment and human health has become so
widespread as to be the unconscious basis of thought and decision making
about health for many people. There's a *lot* of money to be made pandering
to this mindset, and key words like raw, natural, organic, unprocessed, whole,
etc. are a characteristic part. People are afraid of "drugs", but "herbs"
are "natural", untouched by evil "processing" and therefore intrinsically
good, provided by kindly Mother Nature to heal all our ills, unlike the
doctors and pharmaceutical companies that just want to profit from our
suffering.
No. I don't believe that tech is all bad or that nature is all good.
Technology actually makes things more preferable. Vitamix, for
example, is not natural at all.

It would be nice to genetically-engineer some bacteria to feed on our
stools in our colons. That way we would never need to defecate.
Post by b***@cs.toronto.no-uce.edu.yyz
I could go on for pages about the problems with these beliefs, but I won't.
They are part of a powerful trend toward magical thinking and rejection of
science and rational thought which has been building up for decades in the
US, and has profound effects on that country, its citizens and the world it
dominates.
At least the poster didn't include natural herbs like tobacco, potato leaves,
foxglove and oleander in his proposed brew, nor wish to add natural minerals
like lead, cadmium, mercury, antimony and arsenic.
b***@cs.toronto.no-uce.edu.yyz
2004-09-03 17:48:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Curious
It would be nice to genetically-engineer some bacteria to feed on our
stools in our colons. That way we would never need to defecate.
Your stools are mainly composed of bacteria and dead intestinal lining
cells, especially if you eat a typical American diet that is low in
fibre and high in protein and refined grains. So they've already fed
on your stools and turned them into more bacteria.

Besides, defecation is good for you. Low fibre diets are strongly
associated with a range of ailments from the merely painful and
embarrassing like hemorrhoids and anal fissures to the life-threatening
like appendicitis and diverticulitis to colon cancer which is usually
fatal unless detected early.
Curious
2004-09-05 18:28:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@cs.toronto.no-uce.edu.yyz
Post by Curious
It would be nice to genetically-engineer some bacteria to feed on our
stools in our colons. That way we would never need to defecate.
Your stools are mainly composed of bacteria and dead intestinal lining
cells, especially if you eat a typical American diet that is low in
fibre and high in protein and refined grains. So they've already fed
on your stools and turned them into more bacteria.
Besides, defecation is good for you. Low fibre diets are strongly
associated with a range of ailments from the merely painful and
embarrassing like hemorrhoids and anal fissures to the life-threatening
like appendicitis and diverticulitis to colon cancer which is usually
fatal unless detected early.
What I was saying is that these genetically-engineered bacteria can
feed on the stools as they are made. This have the same cleaning
effect as defecating but w/out the need to defecate. IOW,
gene-modified bacteria do that work for you.

Natural bacteria feed on whatever is their. Bacteria could be
gene-modified into "eating" only specfic substances. For example,
there was a strain of gene-modified bacteria to feed on the petroleum
dumps of the sea. If gene-modified, the bacteria can be more
"task-oriented".
Mike Lyle
2004-09-06 21:38:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Curious
Post by b***@cs.toronto.no-uce.edu.yyz
Post by Curious
It would be nice to genetically-engineer some bacteria to feed on our
stools in our colons. That way we would never need to defecate.
Your stools are mainly composed of bacteria and dead intestinal lining
cells, especially if you eat a typical American diet that is low in
fibre and high in protein and refined grains. So they've already fed
on your stools and turned them into more bacteria.
Besides, defecation is good for you. Low fibre diets are strongly
associated with a range of ailments from the merely painful and
embarrassing like hemorrhoids and anal fissures to the life-threatening
like appendicitis and diverticulitis to colon cancer which is usually
fatal unless detected early.
What I was saying is that these genetically-engineered bacteria can
feed on the stools as they are made. This have the same cleaning
effect as defecating but w/out the need to defecate. IOW,
gene-modified bacteria do that work for you.
Natural bacteria feed on whatever is their. Bacteria could be
gene-modified into "eating" only specfic substances. For example,
there was a strain of gene-modified bacteria to feed on the petroleum
dumps of the sea. If gene-modified, the bacteria can be more
"task-oriented".
You'd have to get rid of the bacterial waste and the waste bacteria
somehow. And you'd fart like crazy. All the time.

Mike.
Iris Cohen
2004-09-07 12:20:44 UTC
Permalink
This is sooo silly. If you are not happy with the way God made you, discuss it
with your pastor. Stop wasting our time.
Iris,
Central NY, Zone 5a, Sunset Zone 40
"If we see light at the end of the tunnel, It's the light of the oncoming
train."
Robert Lowell (1917-1977)
Curious
2004-09-09 05:11:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Lyle
Post by Curious
Post by b***@cs.toronto.no-uce.edu.yyz
Post by Curious
It would be nice to genetically-engineer some bacteria to feed on our
stools in our colons. That way we would never need to defecate.
Your stools are mainly composed of bacteria and dead intestinal lining
cells, especially if you eat a typical American diet that is low in
fibre and high in protein and refined grains. So they've already fed
on your stools and turned them into more bacteria.
Besides, defecation is good for you. Low fibre diets are strongly
associated with a range of ailments from the merely painful and
embarrassing like hemorrhoids and anal fissures to the life-threatening
like appendicitis and diverticulitis to colon cancer which is usually
fatal unless detected early.
What I was saying is that these genetically-engineered bacteria can
feed on the stools as they are made. This have the same cleaning
effect as defecating but w/out the need to defecate. IOW,
gene-modified bacteria do that work for you.
Natural bacteria feed on whatever is their. Bacteria could be
gene-modified into "eating" only specfic substances. For example,
there was a strain of gene-modified bacteria to feed on the petroleum
dumps of the sea. If gene-modified, the bacteria can be more
"task-oriented".
You'd have to get rid of the bacterial waste and the waste bacteria
somehow. And you'd fart like crazy. All the time.
Genetically-engineered bacteria can specifically feed on the waste
products and their odors and convert them to substances the human body
can use. Same with the urinary system. Bacteria can be
genetically-modified so that they feed on urea and other
urine-specific constituents so that one does not need to urinate and
so the waste is converted to useful substacnes the subject can use.
Why not also modify the microbes so that they can feed use necessary
nutrients from plants? That way we won't need to eat.
Post by Mike Lyle
Mike.
Sean Houtman
2004-09-14 20:15:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Curious
Post by Mike Lyle
Post by Curious
Natural bacteria feed on whatever is their. Bacteria could be
gene-modified into "eating" only specfic substances. For
example, there was a strain of gene-modified bacteria to feed
on the petroleum dumps of the sea. If gene-modified, the
bacteria can be more "task-oriented".
You'd have to get rid of the bacterial waste and the waste
bacteria somehow. And you'd fart like crazy. All the time.
Genetically-engineered bacteria can specifically feed on the waste
products and their odors and convert them to substances the human
body can use. Same with the urinary system. Bacteria can be
genetically-modified so that they feed on urea and other
urine-specific constituents so that one does not need to urinate
and so the waste is converted to useful substacnes the subject can
use. Why not also modify the microbes so that they can feed use
necessary nutrients from plants? That way we won't need to eat.
There is a limit on some of that. Urine is also very important in
maintaining electrolyte balances. Perhaps you could get a bacteria
to turn the urea back into amino acids that your body can use, but
you will still need to do something about the excess of sodium, or
even other salts that your body may want to get rid of. This is not
counting excess water. As far as converting feces and odors into
substances that the body can use, that would require lots of energy.
There is already a system where this occurs, namely the rest of the
environment.

Sean
Mike Lyle
2004-09-16 15:45:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sean Houtman
Post by Curious
Post by Mike Lyle
Post by Curious
Natural bacteria feed on whatever is their. Bacteria could be
gene-modified into "eating" only specfic substances. For
example, there was a strain of gene-modified bacteria to feed
on the petroleum dumps of the sea. If gene-modified, the
bacteria can be more "task-oriented".
You'd have to get rid of the bacterial waste and the waste
bacteria somehow. And you'd fart like crazy. All the time.
Genetically-engineered bacteria can specifically feed on the waste
products and their odors and convert them to substances the human
body can use. Same with the urinary system. Bacteria can be
genetically-modified so that they feed on urea and other
urine-specific constituents so that one does not need to urinate
and so the waste is converted to useful substacnes the subject can
use. Why not also modify the microbes so that they can feed use
necessary nutrients from plants? That way we won't need to eat.
[...]
Post by Sean Houtman
As far as converting feces and odors into
substances that the body can use, that would require lots of energy.
There is already a system where this occurs, namely the rest of the
environment.
Of course. But I'm enjoying this trip to lunar park. And the idea of
not needing to eat? Spike Milligan territory, and it could be made
into a very funny story. But away from surrealist humo[u]r, you can't
get out more than you put in; and I can't quite visualize the GM
bacteria which would recycle your body-heat and exhaled CO2 for you,
not to mention trifles like shed hair, skin, and nail-clippings. Is it
time to get onto sex yet...?

Mike.
Sean Houtman
2004-09-20 04:42:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Lyle
Post by Sean Houtman
As far as converting feces and odors into
substances that the body can use, that would require
lots of
Post by Mike Lyle
Post by Sean Houtman
energy. There is already a system where this occurs,
namely the
Post by Mike Lyle
Post by Sean Houtman
rest of the environment.
Of course. But I'm enjoying this trip to lunar park. And
the idea
Post by Mike Lyle
of not needing to eat? Spike Milligan territory, and it
could be
Post by Mike Lyle
made into a very funny story. But away from surrealist
humo[u]r,
Post by Mike Lyle
you can't get out more than you put in; and I can't quite
visualize the GM bacteria which would recycle your body-
heat and
Post by Mike Lyle
exhaled CO2 for you, not to mention trifles like shed
hair, skin,
Post by Mike Lyle
and nail-clippings. Is it time to get onto sex yet...?
Mike.
You could put some Cyanobacteria in your blood, but you do
need light for them to take care of the CO2. There is some
evidence that many bacteria share plasmids in a sex-like
transaction, so that part is already covered, besides, that
same transaction is how you are going to do the GM.

Sean
Cereus-validus
2004-09-20 13:39:35 UTC
Permalink
You try that, Sean.
Post by Sean Houtman
Post by Mike Lyle
Post by Sean Houtman
As far as converting feces and odors into
substances that the body can use, that would require
lots of
Post by Mike Lyle
Post by Sean Houtman
energy. There is already a system where this occurs,
namely the
Post by Mike Lyle
Post by Sean Houtman
rest of the environment.
Of course. But I'm enjoying this trip to lunar park. And
the idea
Post by Mike Lyle
of not needing to eat? Spike Milligan territory, and it
could be
Post by Mike Lyle
made into a very funny story. But away from surrealist
humo[u]r,
Post by Mike Lyle
you can't get out more than you put in; and I can't quite
visualize the GM bacteria which would recycle your body-
heat and
Post by Mike Lyle
exhaled CO2 for you, not to mention trifles like shed
hair, skin,
Post by Mike Lyle
and nail-clippings. Is it time to get onto sex yet...?
Mike.
You could put some Cyanobacteria in your blood, but you do
need light for them to take care of the CO2. There is some
evidence that many bacteria share plasmids in a sex-like
transaction, so that part is already covered, besides, that
same transaction is how you are going to do the GM.
Sean
Curious
2004-09-28 00:03:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sean Houtman
You could put some Cyanobacteria in your blood, but you do
need light for them to take care of the CO2.
Cyanobacteria are photosynthetic. Wouldn't chemosynthetic bacteria be
better for this application?
Christopher Green
2004-09-28 06:48:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Curious
Post by Sean Houtman
You could put some Cyanobacteria in your blood, but you do
need light for them to take care of the CO2.
Cyanobacteria are photosynthetic. Wouldn't chemosynthetic bacteria be
better for this application?
Sure. You familiar with the sort of places where chemosynthetic
bacteria live? Anaerobic mud and sulfide-bearing water make the
contents of your large intestine smell like perfume in comparison.
--
Chris Green
Sean Houtman
2004-09-28 18:46:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Curious
Post by Sean Houtman
You could put some Cyanobacteria in your blood, but you do
need light for them to take care of the CO2.
Cyanobacteria are photosynthetic. Wouldn't chemosynthetic bacteria
be better for this application?
No, because the chemical energy they need has to come from
somewhere, and the chemicals that can be used by chemosynthetic
bacteria are generally immediatly toxic to humans. If you want them
to use sugars from your blood, well, the inefficiencies of
thermodynamics mean that they will end up creating more CO2 than
they use.

Sean
Curious
2004-10-12 18:28:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sean Houtman
Post by Curious
Post by Sean Houtman
You could put some Cyanobacteria in your blood, but you do
need light for them to take care of the CO2.
Cyanobacteria are photosynthetic. Wouldn't chemosynthetic bacteria
be better for this application?
No, because the chemical energy they need has to come from
somewhere, and the chemicals that can be used by chemosynthetic
bacteria are generally immediatly toxic to humans. If you want them
to use sugars from your blood, well, the inefficiencies of
thermodynamics mean that they will end up creating more CO2 than
they use.
Sean
There are some bacteria that use CO2 and give out oxygen
Sean Houtman
2004-10-13 03:29:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Curious
Post by Sean Houtman
Post by Curious
Post by Sean Houtman
You could put some Cyanobacteria in your blood, but you do
need light for them to take care of the CO2.
Cyanobacteria are photosynthetic. Wouldn't chemosynthetic
bacteria be better for this application?
No, because the chemical energy they need has to come from
somewhere, and the chemicals that can be used by chemosynthetic
bacteria are generally immediatly toxic to humans. If you want
them to use sugars from your blood, well, the inefficiencies of
thermodynamics mean that they will end up creating more CO2 than
they use.
Sean
There are some bacteria that use CO2 and give out oxygen
Yes. There are. Parts of this thread actually discuss that, they are
called Cyanobacteria, and they are photosynthetic.

Sean
Curious
2004-10-14 01:24:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sean Houtman
Yes. There are. Parts of this thread actually discuss that, they are
called Cyanobacteria, and they are photosynthetic.
Sean
Is it feasible to genetically-engineer bacteria to use acids, acidic
substances, sulphides, oxides [including smoke], ketones, skatole,
phosphides, sulfates, phopshates, halogens [atomic, ionic, isotopic],
carbon [ash, charcoal, etc.] lipids [including gasoline], chlorine
[atomic, ionic, and isotopic], alcohols [organic OH- compounds],
radioactive wastes, histamines, salts, and urea for energy?
Sean Houtman
2004-10-15 00:40:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Curious
Post by Sean Houtman
Yes. There are. Parts of this thread actually discuss that, they
are called Cyanobacteria, and they are photosynthetic.
Sean
Is it feasible to genetically-engineer bacteria to use acids,
acidic substances, sulphides, oxides [including smoke], ketones,
skatole, phosphides, sulfates, phopshates, halogens [atomic,
ionic, isotopic], carbon [ash, charcoal, etc.] lipids [including
gasoline], chlorine [atomic, ionic, and isotopic], alcohols
[organic OH- compounds], radioactive wastes, histamines, salts,
and urea for energy?
Bacteria already use many of those for their own energy uses. Oxides
already have most of the chemical energy removed, so they tend to be
low value. Bacteria have been used in remediating some wastes, for
instance toxic metals (including your radioactive wastes) can be
chemically processed by bacteria to be less available or mobile in
the environment.

Sean

Curious
2004-09-03 03:52:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@cs.toronto.no-uce.edu.yyz
At least the poster didn't include natural herbs like tobacco, potato leaves,
foxglove and oleander in his proposed brew,
Because I was looking for odor-reducing, pleasant-scented, anti-septic herbs only.
Post by b***@cs.toronto.no-uce.edu.yyz
nor wish to add natural minerals
like lead, cadmium, mercury, antimony and arsenic.
These are the same whether natural or synthetic.
Gautam Majumdar
2004-08-31 20:04:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher Green
Post by Curious
3. Betal Leaf [Paan]
Chewing betel (paan, paan masala) is a significant cause of cancer in
Asian countries where this is a practice. Making a steady diet of any
significant amount of it would be unwise at best.
A few of the items in your list are not entirely safe, but only
dangerous in large quantity or long-term use. Betel (paan) is the most
dangerous, but not very. Some of these are definitely inappropriate for
pregnant women.
Betel (Paan) leaf is not particularly carcinogenic - it is the other
things those are added to make it a chewable item. Those include
quicklime, betel nuts (supari), various colouring agents, sugars & finally
tobacco leaf. This last one is probably the most carcinogenic as the
incidence of oral cancer is similar for chewing paan with one of the
tobacco preparations and the processed tobacco (jarda, docta, khaini,
gundi, etc) by itself.
--
Gautam Majumdar

Please send e-mails to ***@freeuk.com
Christopher Green
2004-09-01 06:00:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gautam Majumdar
Post by Christopher Green
Post by Curious
3. Betal Leaf [Paan]
Chewing betel (paan, paan masala) is a significant cause of cancer in
Asian countries where this is a practice. Making a steady diet of any
significant amount of it would be unwise at best.
A few of the items in your list are not entirely safe, but only
dangerous in large quantity or long-term use. Betel (paan) is the most
dangerous, but not very. Some of these are definitely inappropriate for
pregnant women.
Betel (Paan) leaf is not particularly carcinogenic - it is the other
things those are added to make it a chewable item. Those include
quicklime, betel nuts (supari), various colouring agents, sugars & finally
tobacco leaf. This last one is probably the most carcinogenic as the
incidence of oral cancer is similar for chewing paan with one of the
tobacco preparations and the processed tobacco (jarda, docta, khaini,
gundi, etc) by itself.
You're right, betel preparations containing tobacco are far more
carcinogenic, but there is some substantiation of betel alone being
carcinogenic. The reports I've seen concentrate on the nuts rather
than the leaves.
--
Chris Green
Loading...