According to Wikipedia "The Stepan Company is the only manufacturing plant authorized by the Federal Government to import and process the coca plant, which it obtains mainly from Peru and, to a lesser extent, Bolivia. Besides producing the coca flavoring agent for Coca-Cola, the Stepan Company extracts cocaine from the coca leaves, which it sells to Mallinckrodt, a St. Louis, Missouri, pharmaceutical manufacturer that is the only company in the United States licensed to purify cocaine for medicinal use."
"We purchase a crude extract and purify it further into one chemical form, cocaine hydrochloride U.S.P."
I looked that up because I don't work in health care:
"Cocaine Hydrochloride is used topically to produce local anesthesia of accessible mucous membranes of oral, laryngeal, and nasal cavities. It is often used for emergency room sutures and outpatient nasal and facial surgery.
Because Cocaine Hydrochloride is readily absorbed from mucous membranes and can cause severe adverse effects, the drug should be used with caution, and careful attention should be given to dosage and administration technique.
Repeated topical application of cocaine can result in psychic dependence and tolerance."
For regular drinkers like myself I'd happily pay a small premium to buy the "acid free" version of the drink. The sugar still does damage but with both the acid AND sugar it is like a double whammy of "badness" (acid which destroys your teeth's natural protective coating, and sugar to feed the bacteria which actually eat away at your teeth).
No amount of brushing can really undo the amount of damage acidic soda does to your teeth, trust me I know! Even with prescription toothpaste with fluoride 5x times stronger than normal (5000 ppm toothpaste Vs. 1100 ppm) you're only slowing down the progression.
The whole truth about what soda pop and other heavily engineered processed foods do to one's metabolism and general health is going to be shocking to people when it is finally revealed, and I think tooth enamel is the least of your worries.
If Coke is your only option, sure, but I've never seen a doughnut so terrible that I'd take a coke instead.
Sugar does not produce major swings in blood sugar levels unless you're diabetic. Have a working pancreas? Good, then sugars are a perfectly healthy source of calories which your system will merrily mop up into glycogen. Anyway, starch produces a larger insulin response than sugar, so the sugar phobes are laughably ignorant on this count.
As for your concern with nutrients, the fact is an adult male needs 2400+ calories a day. Protein and other nutrient needs are very easily met with some servings of foods such as eggs and milk and potatoes, still leaving a large calorie deficit. Sugar is a perfectly viable way to add four hundred or so calories to your daily diet. Sugary fruit is best, but high quality perfectly ripe fruit is surprisingly difficult to find. Low quality, unripe fruit has many allergens and toxins. In this context sugar is a very good choice.
Personally I daily have about 12 tsp of sugar (in coffee) and a coke. I'm shredded, btw.
1 big mac 540 calories, 1 large fry, 500 calories 1 large Coke 32 oz 310 calories total
Snacks can add up surprisingly quickly so if you do have a shortfall I'm not sure it's necessary to resort to eating sugar. For example, 2 bananas and a tin of salmon will be something like 500 calories. That's 20% of your budget right there.
1) He wasn't advocating for either.
2) Coke doesn't have sugar. It has HFCS. So your comparison should be - commercial dough deep fried in corn oil over water with coca leaf flavoring and corn oil.
3) I'm sure lots of books say males need 2400+ calories a day. They are probably wrong. Just as "breakfast is the most important meal of the day" is wrong. There's plenty of studies that say that second hand smoke isn't bad for you. But these studies are from the early 90's and subsidized by tobacco companies.
That's what I was like too, before I turned 25. That's just how it goes, independent of your diet (within reason).
Besides, I don't have to know what I'm talking about as I can go read actual data. Coke has a glycemic rating of 63 (http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsweek/Glycemic_index_and_gl...) - this list doesn't include donuts and yes, you are correct that things like white bread are actually higher than a Coke but if we take iced vanilla cake as a proxy for a donut the glycemic rating is 44. So yes, to me that seems preferable. Even better would be actual food which is why I don't get most of my nutrition in remote gas stations.
Most people, particularly most biologists and health-care practitioners, would disagree with that.
It helps to start by adding a little lime juice to the soda water, but after a few months you won't need it.
I started out bringing my own bottles from Safeway to the office, but other people started drinking it and now we go through about 40 liters a week.
2 H3PO4 + 3 CaCO3 -> Ca3(PO4)2 + 3 H2O + 3 CO2
The calcium phosphate phase listed above may not be the stable phase in cola solution at NTP, but is the simplest example.
Salt: sodium chloride (NaCl, table salt, etc.)
A salt: an ionic compound from an acid-base neutralization
Good luck with an acid-free version of a carbonated beverage.
But, in addition to phosphoric acid, Coke also has citric acid. I'm not sure you could remove both and get a drink that's still tasty enough...
EDIT: See below. Carbonic acid may not be as meek as I thought.
Enamel erosion due to acid is tied to the acidity of the mouth, which, if the pH drops low enough, starts the demineralization of teeth (note, however, that this is a dynamic process, with systems in place to remineralize teeth, and that this dance happens every time we eat or drink something).
Typically carbonated water alone will be well under a pH of 4, which is itself well below the "5.0–5.7...known to trigger dental erosion effects" in the actually cited fact in that article.
"Dissolution levels with all of the mineral waters were very low and for several still waters were undetectable. Sparkling mineral waters showed slightly greater dissolution than still waters, but levels remained low and were of the order of one hundred times less than the comparator soft drinks. De-gassing of a sparkling mineral water reduced its dissolution, but the total levels were still relatively low suggesting that carbonation of drinks may not be an important factor per se in respect of erosive potential."
"The complex and heterogeneous mineral compositions of mineral waters could influence the dissolution equilibrium of apatite in enamel and controlled addition of several ions to ultrapure deionized water was investigated. Calcium ions led to the greatest reduction in hydroxyapatite dissolution, but their effects were moderated by other ions including magnesium and sulphate. Thus, mineral waters appear to offer a safe alternative to more erosive acidic beverages and their complex mineral ion compositions may positively influence any dissolution processes at the tooth surface."
This effect can be surprisingly strong, e.g. here's a study from a few years later showing "that fortifying apple, orange and grapefruit juices with calcium prevented enamel erosion and decreased root surface erosion (P < .01)."
In fact buffering is well known to protect calcium phosphate in teeth from dissolution (e.g. an older study here which points to the saturation of the same calcium and phosphate ions that the study you cite does as the source of protection), so it's actually quite odd that they would suggest that minimal dissolution from sparkling mineral water would suggest that the carbonation may not be an important factor of erosive potential.
It's hard to judge too much from just an abstract, however, and I can't find a full copy anywhere. That suggestion may just be an off-hand one.
Neutral pH is 7, things with a lower pH are more acidic
Things with a higher pH are basic.
So Carbonated water, with it pH of ~4 is a much stronger acid than something with a pH of 5
Carbonated water's acidity puts it at a lower pH than the acidity needed to start demineralization, so carbonic acid can cause enamel erosion.
Coke changes ingredients around to fit local regulations. In Europe, Diet Coke uses acesulfame potassium ("ace-K"), aspartame and sodium cyclamate. Cyclamate's effect is to neutralize some of the bitterness of ace-K and aspartame, but it's banned in the US and some other countries in the 1950s due to research determining it to be harmful. The ban is being upheld despite later research showing that the original science was flawed.
I don't like Red Bull Cola and think it is a pretty poor substitute - but he enjoys it.
When I was a kid in the 1970s we had pop on Friday nights a 750ml bottle and a large bag of potato chips shared between my family of four.
Now you see people who drink pop for every meal and for a snack between meals and a huge drink at that 750ml or even a liter for one person is normal. People complain about HFCS and acid, weight gain as if their human rights were being violated! Well excuse me for pointing out the elephant in the room people but stop drinking so much pop! It's a dessert like cake or a candy bar it's not a substitute for water.
In my province for many years cans were banned and all pop came in 355ml bottles, sure you could buy a 750ml but it was a big heavy glass bottle. There weren't any big 2 liter bottles and nothing larger than 355ml for single-serve size. Then one day the ban was lifted and cans were allowed but cans were not put in the pop machine 600ml single-serve plastic bottles were. At first people couldn't drink it all and the break room fridge was full of 1/2 filled bottles of pop, then slowly people learned to drink a full 600ml bottle in one sitting.
Unless there's a specific component in Coke that increases Uric Acid (the cause of gout)
Not that I'm a fan of Coke, I rarely drink it. Although it IS great for an upset stomach.
Simple syrups have a ratio of sugar to water much higher than a coke, and if you try one directly, you'll find it just tasting sweet. Or just eat some sugar or a sugar cube, which has a totally insane concentration of sugar.
You certainly won't be in any danger of vomiting.
Carbonation makes soft drinks taste a lot less sweet; compare a "flat" glass of a soft drink with a carbonated one and the effect will be obvious.
The phosphoric acid (or citric acid in some countries) is what (in addition to caffeine, which is bitter) gives Coke its sour "bite", but it doesn't really change the sweetness that much.
If your teeth are failing to heal up from a couple cokes a day the problem is serious vitamin and mineral deficiencies.
A similar ppiece was written in the context software, Dizzying but Invisible Depth. https://plus.google.com/+JeanBaptisteQueru/posts/dfydM2Cnepe
For those who are also interested in the other darker, grimier side of the same coin, might want to check out its use of mercenaries for union busting in South America(by murder of course. In the hands of the right spinners that would be 'terrorism'), similar stuff happened in India as well.
If you saw the kinds of gangsters that become union leaders in South America these days, you'd at least consider using mercenaries.
The local Coca Cola union head here in Uruguay is not a man to be trifled with (Richard Read), he has gotten them incredible benefits (it pays better than programming over here :P ).
And the guys in Argentina are legitimate thugs and crooks (well, so is the government :P )
See for example:
Edit: a side effect of such union power is that Uruguay has the most expensive Coca-Cola in the world, a 2 liter bottle costs 3.5 dollars after taxes (so almost twice what it costs in the U.S.)
Does that reduce consumption to the point that there are noticeable population-wide health benefits?
Instacart shows them at U$ 1.99 for San Francisco. Ironically the 20 ounce ones are the same price.
It just feels way more expensive due to the purchasing power differences I guess.
And yes, a 0.5 liter coke in a gas station also costs 3 dollars here :P
Edit: we might need a Coke index in addition to the Big Mac index :)
There's Expatistan.com and Numbeo, but I think it gets outdated or inaccurate sometimes (for example, the Coke price in Montevideo is outdated).
I can't believe rent in Copenhagen is U$ 2.500/month.
I also think the essay can be written with cynicism instead of wonder, e.g. with an anti-capitalist slant. With one innocuous affordable purchase you can deforest and pollute four continents whilst giving yourself diabetes and dental caries!!!
This reminds me a fact I remember time to time. If civilization collapses after, say, a world war, I most probably can't make a pot, can't grow plants, can't differentiate if one is edible or not, can't dig for petrol, can't make plastic (or even glass), can't reinvent concrete, can't make gunpowder etc., you get the point.
I can only write software and maybe drill with tools and nail with a hammer but that's all.
Some people here (including Americans ;) ) do speak other languages. :)
You need to burn limestone until it collapses into a powder, then add sand and water. Done. For stronger cement, add clay powder.
Have you never had relatives who built a house? Sure, usually you'd buy the powdered stone, but I've heard stories of my great grandparent's generation making it on site.
Maybe I'm just dumb on some of these points, but these are my personal followup questions that indicate that, even knowing these basics, I couldn't immediately make concrete without "civilization". Even the great grandparents who made their own concrete, may have bought the limestone and not known how to get it themselves.
I'm not saying I'm helpless to learn these things, just reinforcing GP's point that the average first-worlder (or at least programmer) doesn't know the first thing about this kind of stuff. Even when you do know the "first things" from Wikipedia, it's not necessarily going to enable you to just go out and make concrete from scratch in an afternoon on your first try.
Early settlers used the piles of shells left by Aborigines to make mortar.
If the international supply chain falls through that has marginally dropped prices, they'll just switch back to the national one. Once they do bottle production will go through the roof, prices will rapidly drop and instead of it being $0.50 a can and $1.50 a glass bottle of coke it'll end up more like $0.75 a bottle.
I also don't think the world will end like people assume. Its not like the mediaeval dark ages, everyone reads and the books containing this knowledge are widely available.
Our biggest issue is the international supply chains, but people should look up the tin trade if they think there wasn't always an international supply chain. We just didn't ship things back and forth around the globe multiple times in some instances.
I think most people would be surprised that if the world ended tomorrow, we would probably be back to the 1900's level of development by the end of an individuals lifespan.
Nope, the pressure from the carbon dioxide pushes equally against all sides of the can. If anything the pressure at the top is slightly lower than at the bottom, at least if the can is standing, because of the weight of the coke pushing against the bottom.
I know some may find this offensive, but sorry, I think I have a moral responsibility myself to let the people around me know of the harms caused by this carcinogen.
I though this was very interesting, so I did a little digging... There is remarkably little information on these 'comestible polymeric coatings', but I was able to find (see below) a reason as to why that is. Apparently these coatings are propriety to the manufacturer and there are competing companies who are constantly in a race to find the best coating.
It's supremely interesting the fact that drinking a can of coke is almost a magic trick right in front of your eyes. It'd be like someone holding a lighter straight to a piece of paper and everyone being baffled as to why it isn't lighting on fire. Yet when someone drinks a coke no one bats an eye as to how it isn't mixing with the metal salts and eating straight through the aluminum can.
"Interior can coatings designed to prevent migration of metal salts into the contained product are called "comestible polymeric coatings". The coatings ars polymers typically used in coil coating. The exact nature of the coatings isn't available since most are proprietary to manufacturers who continuously look for better coatings."
Of course if you could break it down further into smaller parts and tools to manufacture those parts, you'd get an even greater variety of countries and companies.
The center where I work actually does work slightly related to this, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JC24CBVsdo
> Modern tool chains are so long and complex that they bind us into one people and one planet.
When we think about colonizing the Moon or Mars with small groups of people with the intention of making the colonies self-sustaining over time, deep, long-evolved tool chains like the one described in the article could be very difficult to scale down and to replicate in other environments.
Yes, but the pressure is the same on all parts of the can. Ok, almost the same, still.
Maybe because of the parts that have been cut to make it easy to open?
The sides and bottom are curved.
I've had Red Bull Cola, and actually found it quite different, but delicious. No accounting for taste, though.
(edit: just saw a link to an essay entitled "I, Pencil" at the bottom .. this might have pre-dated Friedman).
Obviously they know the ingredients.
While this is true in that no individual nation could produce Coke with the exact same formula, an individual nation could surely produce a soft drink.
The globalization is more about economics and cost minimization than capability. The Australian bauxite mines are the richest and cheapest mines to operate, which makes other sources of aluminum not worth exploiting, but aluminum is still the third most common element on Earth. The plant ingredients could presumably be grown -- albeit far more expensively and perhaps not in large enough quality for full-scale production -- in greenhouses or under grow lights anywhere.
So it's not so much that many nations couldn't produce a can of Coke by themselves as it doesn't make economic sense for them to produce a can of Coke by themselves when the raw ingredients can be had much more cheaply as an import.
Just perhaps not the coca plants and kola nuts, unless they want to make a greenhouse.
I never thought there was any weld in a soda can... (and I still don't think there is any)
"13.An interlocking seam is formed at high speed. Up to 2000 cans go through the
process each minute."
Also tried a site-wide search:
Check out Dr. Robert Lustig videos. Also, the book Salt, Sugar, Fat, about food industry engineering.