Drinking habits

[ . . . ]

Let me be as crystal clear as I can be on this, at age 73. JMcG has a holier than thou attitude of superior knowledge, wisdom, virtue and morality which I find disingenuous and disgusting. I would not care to be in his company in a bar, restaurant or any social gathering. Words fail me.

You are far more forebearing than am I, Bill. I would be pleased to hoist one with you. ;-)

Slainte mhath!

And to you, Nick. I'm calling him on his bullshit. I doubt he can deliver. This won't take a large part of my life. (60, here).

cheers.

Thanks, Bill. Are you in east or west canukada? I have a few other Canadian cyberfriends, one on Nanaimo Island off the west coast, who I've met and would like to visit. Two birds with one stone and all that!

I'm in Vancouver, Nick. Right on the west coast. Nanaimo (on Vancouver Island) is a 90-minute ferry ride away. I visit Nanaimo once a year or so, sometimes to visit a friend who lives there, sometimes to pass through on my way to the outer coast of the island, a wild, remarkable place. The sort of place that makes you want to drink Islays.

Tres KEWL, Bill. Maybe we can work out a time and place. I'll get in touch with Harry (by Bcc) and see what we can do. Eat my SPAM to email me (Bill van ONLY).

"Joshua McGee" skrev i melding news:w7zJj.371$ snipped-for-privacy@newsfe06.lga...

That's bizarre. He has only argued, very much to the point, against your claims. And he has treated your post very seriously, and not been offensive. Wouldn't it serve your cause better to try to meet his arguments? Or is it perhaps the case that you are unable to do so?

Gunnar

"Joshua McGee" skrev i melding news:osLIj.9$ snipped-for-privacy@newsfe02.lga...

"...far into the heavy feints with the still cut", and you are also suggesting eye damage, i.e. methanol content?? Can you actually document any of this? I'd like to see that.

Well well. Then there' the bright side of it; did you know malt whisky is a good source for antioxidants? Here's a post from your friend Bushido from

1999:

Quote:

alt.drinks.scotch-whisky " Bushido"

1 1999/01/13

H ealth benefits of moderate whisky consumption

It has been reported by a member of the MALTS-L list that a new scientific journal article was published on the effects of moderate whisky consumption. Here is the reference for that report:

Duthie, G.G., Pederson, M.W., Gardner, P.T., Jenkinson, A.McE., McPhail, D.B. and Steele, G.M. 1998: The effect of whisky and wine consumption on total phenol content and antioxidant capacity of plasma from healthy volunteers. Euro. J. Clinical Nutrition 52: 733-736. I have not personally read this journal article, but it was reported that a sample size of nine (9) males drank 100 ml aliquots of red wine, 12YO malt whisky and "new make" (i.e. unmatured whisky) spirit, then had blood and urine samples taken and analyzed for the presence total phenol content and antioxidant "capacity". Reportedly, within 30 minutes of consumption, the researchers detected a transient increase of these parameters in the blood plasma samples for the wine and whisky group but not for the new make spirit group. They reportedly further observed that more phenol content increase was noted in the whisky group as opposed to the wine group. They supposedly concluded that the results support suggestions that adequate intake of anti-oxidants and moderate alcohol consumption may reduce the development of heart disease.

Funny, no mention of the panacea spirit known as vodka in this research.....

I will consider that. I took Bill's boilerplate response as so much USENET kerfluffle -- and I did take offense -- but perhaps my skin had scarred over thinly, and the flames burnt once again. I do not believe his intention to be polite. But if the general culture of the ng at this incarnation -- and I hope this is not the case -- is one of zealotry that refuses to approach the toxins in your beverages, so be it.

My intention was never to stop people from being Islay consumers. I, for instance, have a case of 12 Octomore in bond; have a bottle of 5 y.o. Jura (yes, I know that's not an Islay) that, when subjected to mass spec analysis yielded phenolic concentrations *in* *excess* of Octomomore's that I intend to sell; I have several bottles of various levels of peating from, say, 30 to 60 ppm., some slated for drinking some for resale. I would be doing an economically irrational thing by destroying my demographic. In a few years, I will be trying to market to these very people some of the Octomore that which I do not consume (probably everything other than bottles 1 and 8 [to keep] and some other one or two to consume, depending on its quality) from my case.

I am not a chemist. Mr. Mike Russell seems to be more appropriate to discuss the destruction chemicals in Islay malts can cause during the (apparently?) short period they are in the body.

I am one of the good guys. I'm not on a rant. I never meant to be. I'm not a zealot. Lagavulin was life-changing for me. I have been enjoying malts, in private, in small gatherings (while we're name dropping, with Bushido, for instance), and in large gatherings (for instance, Ardbeggeddon, where I have a lifetime invitation) for years. Just: people need to be aware of what they're putting into their bodies. And I am facing a wall of fire, from the "new guard" of ADSW.

I take that my off-the-cuff remarks were taken as rebukes. They were not so intended. I know ScotchFinder has been down for a while, but those with memories long enough will remember that gift that I gave to the SMS community -- going so far as to turn down sponsor money, so that people can believe ScotchFinder objective. My tasting notes are detailed, and I am a serious collector. But I am not a chemist, just a scientist with enough knowledge of the damage that "congeners" in Islay can cause damage, and I wanted people to watch out.

Thought experiment: Let us say that I take the bait. Let us say that I take a month and write a treatise, and go, as the anti-smoking crowd have, chemical by chemical and talk about what it does to your body. Would it change anything? No. The same people who have accused me of having fun at the expense of "the rubes" (their word, not mine) would not be convinced, and everyone else takes one whiff of Islay SMS and will go, "Yeah, that's not for everyday drinking, is it?" What would be my motive? I would learn a lot, certainly, about organic chemistry, which would be its own reward. But my comment was mostly for people like Mr. Russell, who are taken aback by the content of phenol, fusel oils, and other lovely sludgy stuff in even the best SSI drams.

I have no desire to throw fuel on a fire. Some will watch their heads, some will not. I hope that those who do not will have a wake up call

*different* *from* *death* to get their attention.

I remain,

Let's say something went wrong with your killfile and you can read this, Joshua. I would still like to know how you propose someone might drink

175 litres of heavily peated Islays over a few days in order to reach the lethal dosage of phenols you described.

cheers.

Or how somone might pay for 175 heavily peated whisky's

Grt. AA

"Joshua McGee" skrev i melding news:mEYJj.205$ snipped-for-privacy@newsfe02.lga...

I am not questioning your intentions, merely asking if you can document your assertions. So far it looks to me as if Bill here has refuted them all. You can't expect us to simply trust you on theese matters just because you know your malts, frequent the Ardbegeddon etc.?

Gunnar

"Joshua McGee" skrev i melding news:mEYJj.205$ snipped-for-privacy@newsfe02.lga...

We don't need a treatise. All we need is some reference to where you've got your information from. That way we can check it out ourselves instead of having to make some sort of leap of faith. It is after all rather serious assertions you have brought.

No, certainly not. That is reasonable. Give me a week. I'll research a list of common chemical congeners in Islay malts, a description of the active portion of the molecule in vivo, example ranges in ppm in Islay malts, and a set of links to MSDSs. Acceptable?

As far as the refutation, if someone told you that 10 ml of copier machine toner fluid per day (or lighter fluid, or whatever) "wouldn't kill you outright", would you still join him for a daily after-work dram? There has to be give and take, and -- the reason I kf'ed Bill in the first place -- an understanding that factors, such as cumulative damage, could have a negative effect, such as organ cancer: not just death from acute toxic shock. Reasonable?

I will see you in seven days. That seems a fair trade-off between my intentions and what can reasonably be expected of me.

"Joshua McGee" skrev i melding news:OQ3Kj.2$ snipped-for-privacy@newsfe07.lga...

Fair enough, given that your list will have references to relieable sources. It was not without reason that I quoted Bushido's post concerning antioxidants in malt whisky the other day. It stands as a good example with its clear reference to sources that can be looked up by the reader.

I do believe, however, that it will also be necessary for you to adress some of Bill's arguments to achieve credibility. For instance, you said that you don't know how fast phenols leave the body. Bill has an answer to that that you probably didn't read since you've kf'd him:

Quote:

I do.

"Studies in humans and animals show that most phenol that enters the body through the skin, by breathing contaminated air, or eating food, drinking water, or taking products that contain phenol leaves the body in the urine within 24 hours."

(That's what I call a citation, by the way. You know, a link back to a respectable authority.)

Unquote.

He has also shown that to reach the 44-gram lethal level you postulate, one would have to consume some 175 litres of heavily peated Islay malt. Since most phenol leave the body within 24 hours, I guess one will have to consume them fast.

I really think your list also should contain a reference to where you have got your information from that Islay whisky supposedly contains methanol - and in such quantities that it may cause eye damage or worse. If this was true, it would of course be possible to proove and document, and my belief is that any journalist would grab that story prompt. It would be a scandal story that would run in the news globally. Why isn't it?

Gunnar

You use a lot of words to say very little. Bill pointed out that your math was off by several orders of magnitude, and that the phenols and similar toxins you were discussing were secondary to other things that would be fatal long before. Rather than acknowledging your error by a factor of 1000 or so, you went on to call his well-reasoned and calculated response "boilerplate".

Doesn't matter what your intention was, your math is wrong, you rejected a legitimate correction of same, and go on and on and on and on and on and continue to say little.

Great, wonderful, but fix your math or leave it to those who have.

Your response to him, Bill, was one of the most precisely worded and well thought out responses I've seen in Usenet in well over a decade. As you mentioned, he slipped several digits, therefore his conclusion based on wrong math, is invalid.

In fact, what he said was

Please point to what I missed. I read all his kf'ed messages for anything that mentioned another toxin. I found myself saying it, but not Bill. What I saw was his claim that ethanol itself is not a metabolic toxin. Which of course it is. You *can* *die* from over-consumption of ethanol.

I'm in the United States. I called the National Poison Control Center (1-800-222-1222). I asked what the LD50 of ethanol is in an adult.

They are reluctant to give out numbers, because it is so variable from person to person, and because they "don't like to give out numbers because people use them for recreational [inaudible]".

I asked, "So, I can quote the National Poison Control Center as saying that 'Accidental Overdose of ethanol in an adult human is possible'?"

She said, "Yes, absolutely! You get your blood level up high enough and you will die. Alcohol poisoning happens all the time."

I have not spent sufficient time Googling to find the LD50 for humans, but in rodents, it's approximately 3.5 grams of ethanol per kg of body weight.

If one of my (unintentional) combatants comes back with something like "The Poison Control Center is not an authority, this is not a citation, and rodent studies cannot be considered for humans," I will probably throw up my hands in simultaneous disbelief and exasperation. I will also not-so-secretly suspect that the respondent is himself a self- deceptive alcoholic.

This would be reasonable criticism if I came in here with a bible in one hand and holy water in the other. I did no such thing. What I did was pick *one* *class* of chemicals extant in Islay malts, off the cuff, and quote from the MSDS (which is a citation, even if I don't provide a URL, unless you are very poor with Google. If you ever need help finding an MSDS, contact me off list and I'll give you a few pointers.)

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and since I have been forced into a corner I did not intend to inhabit at all -- somehow discrediting or debunking Islay malts -- I have very little to gain here, especially with a group that doesn't even believe that excess consumption of ethanol will kill you. Where do you go from there?

My offering of working for a week to isolate some congeners in Islay malts and look up their MSDSs -- in essence, to describe the "tar" in Islay malts -- has not been treated as the olive branch it was intended to be. What I've gotten is scorn from Van and Hinz while they pat each others' backs.

This room is getting toasty, and if there is someone here who *really*

*cares* -- who was sincerely worried about what I said, off the cuff, about the especial toxicity compared to vodka itself, but is worried about getting flamed -- contact me off-list and I will re-evaluate my position. In the mean time, this is producing far more heat than light, and I am not enough of a neophyte to allow two USENET-dwellers take hours of my time to generate something I'm not even trying to propose -- a reason to ban Islay malts.

Interesting editing. What preceded that was me posting this, in response to your claim that you were being treated as a troll:

"No one has a called you a troll, nor an idiot. But I have called your little bluff about phenols and lethal doses."

You have attempted, several times, to change the subject away from your claim about a lethal dose of phenol. I calculated, using your own information along with properly cited material, that it would require drinking 175 litres of heavily peated Islay -- in quick-time -- to reach the lethal dose you postulated.

My best guess is that you vastly exaggerated to make a point, and are unable for some reason to admit it.

I'm afraid that's a classic straw-man argument. I made no claim that ethanol is or is not a metabolic toxin. I absolutely haven't looked into it, other than a few checks for the purposes of answering your posts. My whole argument is based on your claims; my claim is that yours don't make sense.

But you have told us what the lethal dosage is. 44 grams, you said.

I provided a good citation that the lethal dose was thought to be from one to 15 grams. I illustrated that even for one gram, it would require drinking a ridiculous quantity of heavily peated Islay single malt: 12.5 litres, and quickly, since most phenol leaves the body via the urine within 24 hours of consumption.

Luckily, no one here made any claims that alcohol poisoning can't kill you. That straw man, again.

Those are big rodents. No relation to your claim about phenol, however.

Oh, don't do that. No one has asked about alcohol poisoning, so there's nothing to prove. Simply proving your original claim or admitting you were mistaken will suffice.

Now you resort to slander. I'm gaining a strong impression that you are dishonest in many ways, Joshua.

That certainly was my impression of your attitude. Metaphorically speaking, of course.

I followed the MSDS cite you provided. It goes here:

which gives no information with regard to your claim about a lethal dose of phenol. It refers to "high concentrations" but does not define them.

So when you posted "... that wonderful 'character' of Islay malts is their *extreme* toxicity," you were not attempting to discredit or debunk Islay malts? I see.

That is something else no one here has claimed.

Simply justify or abandon or modify your original claims about Islays in general and fatal doses of phenol in particular so as it make them credible. It's certainly not my argument that phenol or alcohol in sufficient doses is not harmful.

I can't speak for other posters, but reason always works with me.

Don't bother for my sake. I'd be happy if you justified the claims you've made, or stopped making claims you can't justify.

Why can't you post it here? I promise, I'll read it carefully.

No one has asked you to do that, Joshua.

My advice is, skip the braggadocio. Most everyone here would rather discuss single malts in a civilized manner than get into extended arguments about outlandish claims. Try posting on topic without pretensions, and all will be well. There is still time.

Then we are in agreement.

I will not rise to what I perceive as bait.

*You* *appear* *to* *be* *correct* that one will not die of acute toxic shock from phenol itself even in an extreme night of drinking Islay malts.

Once more: *You* *appear* *to* *be* *correct* that one will not die of acute toxic shock from phenol itself even in an extreme night of drinking Islay malts.

Clear?

My bearing was not intended as holier-than-though. I have enjoyed, and continue to enjoy, peated Islay malts.

I do, however, suspect that the congeners in Islay malts -- phenols, heavy alcohols, solvents, and so forth -- will result in harm, immediately and over time, even if not ingested in gargantuan quantities.

I set out at the beginning to explain that I was doing a Back of the Envelope Calculation, where there were variables missing for me. This was a warning that the numbers were going to be flying around. I picked

*one* congener of which I knew. You provided the variable, and showed that *that* *one* *congener* will not kill you immediately in one night's drinking, and that I was off by approximately three orders of magnitude.

I think it's time for a rehearsal: *You* *appear* *to* *be* *correct* that one will not die of acute toxic shock from phenol itself even in an extreme night of drinking Islay malts.

I am not denying this.

What the (proposed) survey was intended to show was that many of the chemicals that give Islays their "wonderful" (to me, to you, too pretty much everyone here, probably) flavor are *toxic* *compounds*.

You said reason works with you. I went back to the first post that started this all. I consider the key passage to be:

************ And yes, my old friends here are going to call it heresy (anyone who doesn't remember me and thinks me a troll, ask an old-timer), but that wonderful "character" of Islay malts is their *extreme* toxicity. I will admit Ardbeg and Port Ellen are delicious stuff, but you dip far into the heavy feints with the still cut, and are risking severe organ damage. Not just boring organs like your liver, but fun ones like your eyes. ************

This is what I am arguing.

a. Islay malts are toxic. b. By some reasonable definition, they could be considered "extremely" toxic. c. The chemicals in some Islay malts can cause organ damage, specifically to the liver and eyes.

Switching to numbering now, I have questions for you:

1. Am I, or do you believe that I am, arguing something other than these three points?
2. With which, if any, of "a", "b", and "c" do you disagree?

EVERYONE is welcome to add to this discussion.

This will give us a fresh starting point. I believe it safe to say that you thought I was a "born-again" of some loathsome sort (and a dunce to boot), and that I thought you were one of the "new guard" going through the motions of a dominance display (and a dunce to boot). Let's assume, for the sake of civil discussion, that neither of our profiles of the other was correct. Truce? I will listen to what you have to say from here on in. If you are willing to do so from my stage, please answer "1" and "2". If you are unwilling, please provide a list for me to address.