PDA

View Full Version : Arsenic in Apples


Jane-DoH
19th Sep 2011, 19:15
Anybody heard about this?

DX Wombat
19th Sep 2011, 19:20
The seeds of many fruits contain various noxious substances but the amounts are usually insignificant.

11Fan
19th Sep 2011, 19:22
Quit watching Dr. Oz and it will go away.

jackieofalltrades
19th Sep 2011, 19:22
Yes. There is also a trace amount of cyanide in the apple pips. But the amount is so little that it's not worth considering.

handsfree
19th Sep 2011, 19:25
Apple seeds contain cyanide but you'd have to eat buckets of them to have any problems.

Arsenic can be found in apple juice but it is of the organic form which current evidence shows has no health implications. Inorganic arsenic on the other hand won't do you any good at all.

Dr Oz tested for total arsenic. :ugh:

PukinDog
19th Sep 2011, 19:28
If you find apples worrisome, a potato will positively scare you out of your knickers.

11Fan
19th Sep 2011, 19:40
I heard if you hide under an apple tree, the satellites can't see ya, but you gotta be wearing old lace.

hellsbrink
19th Sep 2011, 19:43
Drink a couple of gallons of scrumpy per day and you'll go blind because of the arsenic, but I reckon you'll have other things to worry about if you're doing that.

ENFP
19th Sep 2011, 19:52
Jane

Anybody heard about this?

What have you heard?

jackieofalltrades
19th Sep 2011, 20:07
Arsenic, by definition is inorganic. It is extremely poisonous. When the arsenic atom is included in a compound containing carbon it is then by definition organic. However, this class of molecules is still highly toxic.

As a side note, molecules of the formula C4H5As are known as Arsoles which led to the schoolboy humourous title of a paper in the Journal of Organometallic Chemistry: "Studies In The Chemistry Of Arsoles."

11Fan
19th Sep 2011, 20:20
I knew something smelled funny about this story.

DX Wombat
19th Sep 2011, 20:24
You aren't planning anything nasty are you? :eek:

ENFP
19th Sep 2011, 20:39
Is this connected to the 'how to dispose of the body thread' ??

Cacophonix
19th Sep 2011, 20:42
You aren't planning anything nasty are you?

Paging Agatha Christie... ;)

Of course cyanide on his apple did for this poor fellah!

Alan Turing (http://www.thocp.net/biographies/turing_alan.html)

Caco

Um... lifting...
19th Sep 2011, 20:48
Someone has been filling the pufferfish with toxins! I'm pretty sure it's a conspiracy.:rolleyes:

11Fan
19th Sep 2011, 21:12
Isn't this how Casey Anthony got started?

Jane-DoH
19th Sep 2011, 21:50
jackieofalltrades

Arsenic, by definition is inorganic. It is extremely poisonous. When the arsenic atom is included in a compound containing carbon it is then by definition organic. However, this class of molecules is still highly toxic.

Some organic arsenic is indeed toxic.


11Fan

I knew something smelled funny about this story.

Yeah, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth too :E


DX Wombat

You aren't planning anything nasty are you? :eek:

You honestly think I would poison somebody with arsenic?


11Fan

Isn't this how Casey Anthony got started?

I thought she had a baby which she killed; then didn't report for awhile.

11Fan
19th Sep 2011, 23:16
I thought she had a baby which she killed; then didn't report for awhile.

Acquitted, much to the chagrin of a lot of folks.

The family computer had some "history" of searches for chloroform. That was the obscure reference I was leaning towards.

reynoldsno1
20th Sep 2011, 04:17
Good name for a new band .....

rh200
20th Sep 2011, 04:25
a potato will positively scare you out of your knickers.

No I must be good no I must be good ....... :E

On another note Jane I think its a conspiracy by the government that they can use against us, can't think how yet but I'm working on it:p.

Krystal n chips
20th Sep 2011, 04:48
Apples are fine....until you wrap them in...old lace.....( sorry....:p )

Loose rivets
20th Sep 2011, 08:03
From the link:

It was in this 1950 paper that he proposed the Turing Test which is still today the test people apply in attempting to answer whether a computer can be intelligent.


I don't think that's true. I thought the main issue was being able to tell - by a series of tests/questions - whether one was talking to a robot or a human. Really, quite different.

Any enlightened comments? Or daft ones, since this is JB.;)

green granite
20th Sep 2011, 08:54
LR, your post suggests that Humans are not intelligent.

radeng
20th Sep 2011, 09:20
gg,

It's true in too many cases. To paraphrase one of the Victorian philosophers
"The world is full of men, mostly fools"

arcniz
20th Sep 2011, 09:27
I thought the main issue was being able to tell - by a series of tests/questions - whether one was talking to a robot or a human. Really, quite different.

Without having recently revisited the source text , one recalls the sense that The Turing Test was directed more to the issue of computational semantics - how to converse with computers - rather than any issues of intelligence, per se. It arose in a period when "programming" was accomplished with switches, plug-boards and rotary dials rather than even the Jacquard (or Hollerith)-style card input sources that became iconic for data exchange in the mid 50's thru 70's.

The hubris of European erudition in the early 50's was such that not even animals - neither cats and dogs and horses nor apes closely resembling some of one's neighbors - were considered capable of human-style intelligence. The re-evaluation of that concept has come a long way - as the scaling up of computing speed and functionality available to ordinary folk has increased a few hundred billion-fold in a few decades, and with it the ability to imitate all manner of complexities through a variety of means - ranging from naive approximation to wholly precise functional equivalence.

The concept of "Software" did not exist until around 1952 - evidenced by some heated competition for credit to the title of Inventor of the word. Sequences entered for instruction of the machine were seen as steps in a predictable and pre-determined sequence -- like the patterns in automated looms and milling machines. Turing did venture some into the world of self-modifying programs and that may be the real essence of the T-Test premises and postulates. The motives went beyond theory -- BITS were scarce and very expensive in those days, so the idea of sharing and recycling parts of programs ""on the fly"" with self-modifying code was very attractive for immediate practical needs.

What really set the barn afire was the emergence of programming languages in the 50's and beyond, with Fortran as a workhorse that still pulls some plows today, APL and ilk as vehicles for translating mathermatical symbolism and reasoning more directly into computer instructions, and ALGOL as the elegantly recursive language of languages that was the first computing language of unlimited scope to be processed by programming written in itself - in ALGOL.

The concept and discipline of Computational Linguistics emerged to address more generally the topic of what could and could not be said to a computer, and how thoughts could be transferred in terms of the highly precise explicit speech required in programming that must be testable for absolute correctness and unambiguity -- in the mission-critical applications of computing that are now so common.

Curiously enough, programming for intelligent machines requires another, additional class of linguistic structure -- with constructs that express the degree of ambiguity desired or possible in the exactness of certain processes and steps along the way from data to decisions. To my knowledge, this does not yet exist (2011) in any generally-accepted form or conceptual framework.

What goes around, as they say, comes around.

DX Wombat
20th Sep 2011, 09:27
You honestly think I would poison somebody with arsenic?
Jane, wheersyasensayuma?* :rolleyes: Or were you planning to use something a little more exotic? :E
* Scouse word meaning "Do you possess a sense of humour?" :rolleyes:

Cacophonix
20th Sep 2011, 10:59
You honestly think I would poison somebody with arsenic?

No not really! I mean why would one use arsenic when a 9 millimeter automatic would be so much more definitive? ;)

Caco

Mac the Knife
20th Sep 2011, 11:13
Read the original paper!

Computing Machinery and Intelligence A.M. Turing (http://loebner.net/Prizef/TuringArticle.html)

:ok:

radeng
20th Sep 2011, 11:20
I believe celery leaves have a fairly high amount of arsenic in them. Some really nasty leaves are those of rhubarb, full of oxalic acid and so very toxic.

It's actually somewhat surprising how many vegetable poisons are so readily available in hedgerows, woods and corners of gardens.

Um... lifting...
20th Sep 2011, 14:22
Nature, red in tooth and claw (or green, if one prefers...)

11Fan
20th Sep 2011, 15:15
For a moment there I thought that the Time Stamp Fairy was putting Alan Turnin Posts in the Apple Thread.

That was until I read Caco's first post over there.


It's early.

PukinDog
20th Sep 2011, 19:16
Is this arsenic-in-apples business related in any way to the water flouridation conspiracy I learned about in that old black and white documentary? Another attempt to sap and impurify our precious bodily fluids?

And to think my own 80 year-old mother works part-time every fall at an apple orchard, to "just stay active", or so she claims. Little did I know that with every bushel or bag she hands out she's dispensing Death to the unwitting, including those on field trips. School children on field trips!

Cacophonix
20th Sep 2011, 21:29
Puking

Your moniker is perfectly apposite to the sweetest of good apple syrup. My family happily farmed apples in a Southern African place for years and it didn't hurt anybody! :ok:

Caco

http://www.revealyourbeauty.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/snow_white_witch.jpg