And where is the evidence to support your statement? If it were the case then medical journals would be full of articles related to health issues correlated with consuming maple syrup. And yet there are not...Quote:
Originally Posted by Scm
Printable View
And where is the evidence to support your statement? If it were the case then medical journals would be full of articles related to health issues correlated with consuming maple syrup. And yet there are not...Quote:
Originally Posted by Scm
..........
The linked article is about how journals published spoof articles, not how Atmos is poisoning people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scm
Regardless of it's content, I'm still not convinced that it is present in sufficient quantities to either cause an issue or warrant listing as an ingredient.
..........
I have used Atmos defoamer for 14 years and have never had anyone complain of the Atmos taste in my syrup nor have I ever personally gotten sick for ingesting a lot of my own syrup that was produced using Atmos 300 defoamer. One day last week I made 110 gallons of syrup using only about 1 once of Atmos 300. If you do the math, that give you a concentration of .000071 percent. Kind of a microscopic amount of Atmos 300 in the syrup even if all of the Atmos went through into the syrup without any evaporation or dissipating. If you don't like the Atmos 300 for a defoamer, don't use it.
Joe
So, in essence, you're saying just because peer reviewed journals have published spoof articles in the past that it means that all articles are suspect? The fact that they were revealed speaks volumes to the peer review process and the spoof article is discredited. Further, just because the spoof articles were printed would not rule out publishing and having other researchers comment on an article on how atmos is poisoning people. The only thing we're left with is a non-reviewed journals and what good are those since researchers can't comment or validate the results.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scm