News Roundup 7.14.2023

Were controlled fires necessary in East Palestine, artificial sweeteners on the chopping block, and what exactly is in Logan Paul's Prime drinks?

I’ve done this series in the past every now and then, but am considering releasing these more frequently as a way of reporting on things that I have come across but don’t have enough time to fully cover, which will hopefully provide readers with a starting point to look deeper.

Edit: Link and footnote provided for the sucralose paper.

---

A Hearing on East Palestine

In late June The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) held a two-day investigative hearing on the East Palestine fallout.

Each day was around more than 9 hours. The two videos can be found below:

• Day 1

  • Covered Hazard response as well as the question of whether the controlled fire was necessary.

• Day 2

  • Covers the wheel bearings and other complications.

The intent of these investigations is to have testimonials and find evidence that could help with the overall investigation, including figuring out who exactly is culpable for the fallout.

Since the two videos are around 20 hours long I haven’t been able to spend time going through it all. However, I did watch a good portion relating to the vinyl chloride question which I found rather interesting- that portion can be found here.

This portion included some of the first responders to the train derailment, as well as representatives for Norfolk Southern including a 3rd party who was intended to provide information to Norfolk Southern. The other party in this hearing was OxyVinyls, which was the manufacturer and shipper of the vinyl chloride.

In short, this portion of the hearing was a finger-pointing, blame-game battle where Norfolk Southern blamed poor containment and spillage of the vinyl chloride on OxyVinyls, and thus appear to consider them culpable in the controlled fire. OxyVinyls, in contrast, argues that the controlled fire was not necessary- interesting pre-testimonial remarks by two individuals on the side of OxyVinyls provide some additional context. As noted by OxiVinyls, the wheel-bearings on the vinyl chloride tanks were not the ones that failed.

Now, in order to figure out what exactly went on, the hearing referred to polymerization. Polymerization is a process in which smaller molecular units link/bond together. These smaller units are generally called monomers, and thus polymers are multiple monomer units stitched together.

This is how vinyl chloride monomers gets converted into PVC, which appears as a white, powdery substance- you may have noticed a good deal of that in post-fire pictures.

In addition, and something that I overlooked in my research, VC polymerization is an exothermic reaction. Exothermic reactions are ones in which the energy released from the reaction is greater than the energy required for the reaction to take place. Put another way, exothermic reactions release heat into the environment.

A clear example is when you burn propane or charcoal for your summer grilling needs. You don’t need to keep adding heat to your charcoal (at least, you shouldn’t if done properly) because the charcoal briquets, after the initial heating, should eventually release their own heat which propagates the charcoal burning further, thus allowing you to cook your food.

In the case of East Palestine, Norfolk Southern’s side argued that there was evidence of VC polymerization occurring. If so, that would mean that the tanks carrying the vinyl chloride would be increasing in temperature. Also, being an exothermic reaction, that would suggest that a polymerization reaction, once started, should continue to propagate and could lead to an explosion if not sustained.

The rest of this discussion gets rather technical, although I personally found it all interesting.

But what would likely interest readers was the rebuttal by OxyVinyls’ side which argued that there should not have been any polymerization occurring because:

1. The tanks were contained, and without any additional starting agent such as oxygen, polymerization should not occur.

2. The tanks did not appear to increase in heat to a sufficient degree to allow polymerization.

The important factor here, once again, is heat. Norfolk Southern argued that their testing noted the tanks getting hotter, causing them to act quickly. In contrast, OxyVinyls suggested that the testing for heat signatures was inaccurate and was not hot enough to actually cause polymerization.

The hearing goes into a greater dive in regards to polymerization. However, I found this graph on the tank’s temperature to be a rather telling piece of evidence (timestamp here):

There’s a large gap in data here, and the Closed Captions unfortunately covered up the x-axis. However, if it was argued that polymerization was occurring, then shouldn’t we be seeing a continuous increase in temperature? It is, after all, an exothermic reaction. Instead, the temperature readings up until the controlled fire was conducted did not note an increase aside from the random spike. Instead, it showed a decrease in temperature.

Again, I haven’t looked at the rest of the hearing aside from this vinyl chloride section, but this section was enough to suggest that maybe the controlled fires weren’t really necessary. Of course, all things are different in hindsight, but there is something really interesting to consider here.

---

Rethinking Artificial Sweeteners

In recent years artificial sweeteners have come under fire due to possible ill health effects. However, within the past year a greater light has been placed onto these sweeteners, with greater concern being raised towards possible carcinogenic properties of artificial sweeteners.

In May an article came out¹ alluding to possible genotoxic properties of the sugar substitute Sucralose (Splenda) which received widespread attention:

Genotoxicity refers to agents that may cause damage to DNA, possibly leading to cancer. In this case, the concern was over a possible sucralose metabolite sucralose-6-acetate being genotoxic.

I haven’t had time to read this study in full yet. Excluding the reference section the paper is around 27 pages long and so I haven’t had time to look at the paper and break it down. That being said, this paper has led to growing attention towards possible harms from sugar substitutes, whether realized or still hypothetical.

And more recently, the WHO has looked into the sugar substitute Aspartame and has declared it a “possible carcinogen”, although it should be noted that this categorization is prefaced with a heavy caveat of limited information:

After reviewing the available scientific literature, both evaluations noted limitations in the available evidence for cancer (and other health effects).

IARC classified aspartame as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B) on the basis of limited evidence for cancer in humans (specifically, for hepatocellular carcinoma, which is a type of liver cancer). There was also limited evidence for cancer in experimental animals and limited evidence related to the possible mechanisms for causing cancer.

JECFA concluded that the data evaluated indicated no sufficient reason to change the previously established acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 0–40 mg/kg body weight for aspartame. The committee therefore reaffirmed that it is safe for a person to consume within this limit per day. For example, with a can of diet soft drink containing 200 or 300 mg of aspartame, an adult weighing 70kg would need to consume more than 9–14 cans per day to exceed the acceptable daily intake, assuming no other intake from other food sources.

Again, a Group 2B categorization suggests very limited associations, just above Group 3 which suggests no sufficient evidence in both animal and human models. The above recommendations suggest that possible concern may arise in those who consume high levels of artificial sweeteners well above what a typical person would ingest on a daily basis.

The WHO provides a nifty little graph showing these different groups:

In an era of “stop meddling into our personal affairs WHO!”, it’s curious why so much attention is being paid to these artificial sweeteners. On one hand, those concerned with the possible toxicities of these sweeteners may see this move as a move towards closer, in-depth investigations into possible genotoxicity. Note that these sweeteners are approved by the FDA, and so this move may be a deviation from the FDA’s arguments that these sweeteners are safe to consume, although the WHO becoming interested may also not bode well.

On the other hand, the growing interesting in different diets such as keto or carnivore may be considered a hit to the sugar industry, and so some may consider this crackdown an attack on alternative foods or diets.

As of now, I’m not sure where the growing interest in these sweeteners are coming from, but I suppose we should see what comes from all of this attention. In any given case, this may once again point to a basic principle that less is more.

---

Put down the Prime

No, this isn’t in reference to Amazon and those Prime day deals! In the past few months social media influencer/boxer Logan Paul released an energy/hydration drink line called Prime, which was met with massive hysteria and hype, to the point that the early release of these drinks were met with quick buyouts.

From Prime’s website. The hydration formula.

I didn’t pay much attention to Prime since I wasn’t really interested in what influencers peddle. I suppose I’m also at that millennial curmudgeon stage of my life when it comes to these things. I and Substack readers are also likely not to be the target demographic, which is likely to be kids.

In any case, the hype around this drink did not seem to die down, even now as it has become more widely available. Unfortunately for Logan Paul, this drink has come under scrutiny.

Remember that Paul’s target demographic is likely to be kids, which raises a question of why kids in particular would need these sorts of drinks. The hydration formula are touted as being an answer to the growing hydration market which is filled with salty-tasting drinks.

I have been meaning to write an article on hydration, but in the meantime let me state that Paul’s team and their unsalted hydration drinks are an example of not utilizing Chesterton’s fence-ask yourself why salt is added to hydration drinks before deciding you don’t want to include it in your formula.

But in recent days more attention has been pointed towards the energy drink formula of Prime and the caffeine content of this drink. The FDA is now being asked to look into these energy drinks for their extremely high levels of caffeine argued to be equivalent to 6 cans of Coke, and strikingly are comparable to levels of caffeine in two energy drink cans.

Shockingly, Prime energy drinks appear to contain a whopping 200mg of caffeine.

This would explain the crackdown that these drinks are experiencing. Given the fact that these drinks are, in some regard, targeted towards children, we can see some pretty scary effects in over-caffeinating children who would have no need for these energy drinks in the first place. Parents who may cave to the wants of children may also be none the wiser in reading the actual labels for these drinks.

Paul and his team may argue that these drinks are intended to be for adults, but that doesn’t change the fact that these influencers engage in parasocial relationships with their viewers who will feel like they should buy these products in order to support their idols, or even so that they can gain some social approval among peers as being “in”.

I recall seeing a few kids clamoring towards a Prime bin in a grocery store, quick to grab a few and run away to other parts of the store. It makes me wonder how aware parents are to the actual ingredients in these drinks.

All things considered, this is more reason to be more proactive consumers, and to be aware of marketing tactics and influences that may push for a “buying without thinking” attitude on kids.

---

Substack is my main source of income and all support helps to support me in my daily life. If you enjoyed this post and other works please consider supporting me through a paid Substack subscription or through my Ko-fi. Any bit helps, and it encourages independent creators and journalists such as myself to provide work outside of the mainstream narrative.

Click on the image above or visit the website at https://ko-fi.com/moderndiscontent

1. Susan S. Schiffman, Elizabeth H. Scholl, Terrence S. Furey & H. Troy Nagle (2023) Toxicological and pharmacokinetic properties of sucralose-6-acetate and its parent sucralose: in vitro screening assays, Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part B, DOI: 10.1080/10937404.2023.2213903