29 days ago4 points(+0/-0/+4Score on mirror)2 children
"Americans won't drink our product if it doesn't fluoresce just the right way when you pour it into a glass. The nanoparticles help tune the index of refraction and to reflect lightwaves in ways that studies have shown make the consumer more likely to deem a beverage desirable at a glance compared to products without nanoparticles"
Thankfully titanium dioxide isnt bad for you IIRC except for being extremely abrasive. Do NOT use toothpaste with TiO2 in it. It erodes your teeths natural enamel layer.
You could crack open an organic chemistry textbook and start learning some of this shit yourself, rather than just screaming nonsense... you realize that, right?
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8454568/
Members of the same team found that simply cooking food will cause the formation of nanostructure carbon quantum dots.
The answers to this are probably extremely complicated, and there's a good chance that these things have no real impact on health whatsoever, but I'm sure everyone here would rather just jump to imaginary conclusions to scream about things.
> You could crack open an organic chemistry textbook and start learning some of this shit yourself
Unreasonable request. No time for that.
> rather than just screaming nonsense
I asked questions and expressed a suspicion about their actual intents.
> The answers to this are probably extremely complicated
In all your ambition to give a smart answer, you gave none. But what you posted actually *has* an answer:
> For instance, nanotechnology has been used for food quality improvement, shelf-life extension, cost reduction, and nutrition enhancement.
Why do they have to further refine goyslop sugar-water? Clearly "food quality" is already out of the window along with nutritional enhancement. Shelf-life extension... that's a valid reason I guess. Cost reduction is highly questionable (how?).
> Exploration of naturally occurring nanostructures in food is one of the hottest topics in the scientific community. There is much uncertainty on their effect on living organisms.
Oh, so there is actually no certain answer. So they just beta-test with customers.
> contact with these food-borne CDs is very frequent in our daily life.
> In most cases, food-borne CDs were present either in liquid food items or solid food after thermal processing at normal cooking temperatures
So... what's even the point in all of this? And what is that contract with Microsoft about?
I'm going to hazard a guess that they're extremely *non*-reactive to much of anything, which is why they have been undetected for so long. Typically anything reactive makes people go "what is it that is doing that thing". If it's not reactive and is easy broken down by the liver, it could just slip by unnoticed.
So why the FUCK? It's some jewish-kabalist moloch worshiping bullshit probably, just to cause harm to people in one way or another.
Like the nanoparticles titanium dioxide in skittles because they say Americans won't eat them if the center isn't pure white or some trash like that.
https://archive.ph/pLtTw
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8454568/
Members of the same team found that simply cooking food will cause the formation of nanostructure carbon quantum dots.
The answers to this are probably extremely complicated, and there's a good chance that these things have no real impact on health whatsoever, but I'm sure everyone here would rather just jump to imaginary conclusions to scream about things.
Unreasonable request. No time for that.
> rather than just screaming nonsense
I asked questions and expressed a suspicion about their actual intents.
> The answers to this are probably extremely complicated
In all your ambition to give a smart answer, you gave none. But what you posted actually *has* an answer:
> For instance, nanotechnology has been used for food quality improvement, shelf-life extension, cost reduction, and nutrition enhancement.
Why do they have to further refine goyslop sugar-water? Clearly "food quality" is already out of the window along with nutritional enhancement. Shelf-life extension... that's a valid reason I guess. Cost reduction is highly questionable (how?).
> Exploration of naturally occurring nanostructures in food is one of the hottest topics in the scientific community. There is much uncertainty on their effect on living organisms.
Oh, so there is actually no certain answer. So they just beta-test with customers.
> contact with these food-borne CDs is very frequent in our daily life.
> In most cases, food-borne CDs were present either in liquid food items or solid food after thermal processing at normal cooking temperatures
So... what's even the point in all of this? And what is that contract with Microsoft about?