Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 51
  1. #1
    Moderator Moderator
    Reputation: driver bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    2,933

    Boo, Hiss Evil Coporate America

    Monster Energy serves up a "cease and desist" notice on Rock Art Brewery.

    http://www.rockartbrewery.com/

    Utterly ridiculous IMO. I really hope that this has a happy ending, spreading the news around the internet and maximizing the negative impact on Monster might make them think twice.

    Personally I can't stand the stuff anyway...

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    2,529
    This was in my local paper this morning here in Fort Wayne. I'm trying to figure out how I would confuse a canned soft drink to a bottled microbrew.

  3. #3
    banned
    Reputation: Uncle Jemima's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    510
    ROCK ART is just down the road from me. It and MONSTER are everywhere here, but I can't see any direct, or indirect, corrolation between the two products. Though I do not drink the 'Energy Drinks' I do ROCK ART. I'll take a tour of the Brewery this weekend and see what is what.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Blister Butt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    307

    Boycott Monster

    The only reason stuff like this succeeds is because we let it. We can vote with our feet and our wallets. A noticeable impact on sales and negative publicity will cost more to Monster in the long run. But saying nothing will only encourage this. What the guy said about "and justice for all who have the deepest pockets" ought to sound alarm bells. Do the right thing.
    "You'll thank me when it's all said and done"

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    35

    read in another forum

    I was just reading about this in a home brew forum http://forum.northernbrewer.com/view...p?f=14&t=80134

    What is this Hansen crew thinking?!!! I never really like that Monster crap anyway; certainly don't now and I can't even get anything from Rock Art here in TN! I say raise a glass for the little guy!

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    171
    Coporate...I LOL.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    11
    I hope Hansen sent the same notice to Ben and Jerry's ice cream. They have a sundae called the Vermonster, Rock Arts beer doesn't seem to bother them. B & J's would have deep pockets to kick their butts.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    226
    Looks like some one started a petition to support Rockart here is the link

    http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/tel...ller-companies

    And here is a link to Hansen email contact if you wish to send them a direct message

    http://www.hansens.com/contact/

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    77
    This stinks. I'm in. I'll go to the websites and do what I can to show my disgust against the people who make Monster energy drink.

    Unreal.

  10. #10
    Bicyclochondriac.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    13,387
    Quote Originally Posted by driver bob
    Monster Energy serves up a "cease and desist" notice on Rock Art Brewery.

    http://www.rockartbrewery.com/

    Utterly ridiculous IMO. I really hope that this has a happy ending, spreading the news around the internet and maximizing the negative impact on Monster might make them think twice.

    Personally I can't stand the stuff anyway...
    Yeah, I saw this on facebook. Sounds like Monster Drinks is following the business model of Specialized Bikes.

  11. #11
    banned
    Reputation: Uncle Jemima's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    510
    Three Words and a Hyphen--"Spike Jones Photo-shoot"

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    226
    the petition is up to 543 signatures

    lets show some support for this business tell your friends about it

  13. #13
    Flyin Canine
    Reputation: shanedawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,287
    Super lame corporate lawyers going too far. When I would use an energy drink I used to drink monster but not any more. I'll be drinking red bull unless they drop this suit. Take that corporate bastards!

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: salimoneus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,888
    **** Monster. why anyone would ingest all that sugar, caffeine, and toxic chemicals is beyond me.

    Water, Glucose, Taurine, Sucrose, Malic Acid, Panax Ginseng Root Extract, L-Cartine, Caffeine, Sodium Citrate, Sodium Benzoate (Preservative), Potassium Sorbate (Preservative), Sucralose, Niacinamide, Natural Flavor, Salt, Inositol, Guarana Seed Extract, Glucuronolactone, Certified Colors, Cyanocobalamin.


    WTF is half of that junk? poisons. oh and btw sucralose "made from sugar" is total bs. since when did sugar have chlorine in it? yes i said CHLORINE, not chloride. you know, the stuff used in swimming pools as a disinfectant. yummy.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    2,529
    city water has chlorine in it as well among other things. not that that justifies using it to replace certain atoms in what was a sugar molecule. also consider that table salt also contains chlorine.

    edit: after looking up the chemical structure of sucralose, it is an organocholride. I'm still not saying it's good stuff, I avoid artificial sweeteners as much as possible. I figure the body knows how to process the real stuff better than anything made in lab.

    http://www.ific.org/publications/bro...alosebroch.cfm

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: salimoneus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,888
    Quote Originally Posted by emtnate
    city water has chlorine in it as well among other things. not that that justifies using it to replace certain atoms in what was a sugar molecule. also consider that table salt also contains chlorine.

    edit: after looking up the chemical structure of sucralose, it is an organocholride. I'm still not saying it's good stuff, I avoid artificial sweeteners as much as possible. I figure the body knows how to process the real stuff better than anything made in lab.

    http://www.ific.org/publications/bro...alosebroch.cfm

    actually, table salt has chloride, not chlorine. big difference.

    and yes city water has chlorine as well as flouride and a bunch of other toxins that they say are harmless and even beneficial. which is why i only drink water filtered using a halfway decent system, such as reverse osmosis in combination with several others.

    there is a reason many countries have outlawed the use of flouride in water supplies, and that's because it's a toxic chemical byproduct of the aluminum manufacturing process. ahh, aluminum, there's another toxic substance, conveniently present in anti-perspirants, cheap cookware, water bottles, lots of places. when you have some time, do a little research on aluminum, flouride, and their links to alzheimers. it's quite startling.

    last time i checked out the ingredients of a multi-vitamin, i saw no mention of chlorine, flouride, or aluminum. don't put that junk in your body, it's poison.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: salimoneus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,888
    Quote Originally Posted by emtnate
    edit: after looking up the chemical structure of sucralose, it is an organocholride.
    not trying to derail this thread any worse, but i missed this one.

    organocholrides? yea, they are in the pesticide family. do a search. sound safe now?

  18. #18
    is buachail foighneach me
    Reputation: sean salach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    6,519
    Quote Originally Posted by salimoneus
    actually, table salt has chloride, not chlorine. big difference.
    I could be way off base here, and if that's the case, so be it, but:

    co2 has Oxygen in it, even though it's spelled out Carbon DiOxide. that would lead me to reason that scientists change the spelling of one of the elements in a compound. I'm pretty sure Sodium Chloride, salt, is sodium and chlorine.


    Not that Monster is anything but a bunch of jack asses with this stuff.

  19. #19
    Bicyclochondriac.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    13,387
    Quote Originally Posted by salimoneus
    yes i said CHLORINE, not chloride. you know, the stuff used in swimming pools as a disinfectant. yummy.
    I think there is some confusion here.

    Sucrolose molecules contain chlorine atoms. That is different from the "chlorine" you stick in your swimming pool. Just because a molecule contains an an element does not mean it has chemical properties of that atom in it's elemental form or in other atoms. Water behaves nothing like oxygen gas or hydrogen gas.

    Not saying that the idea of sucrolose is not a little scary, but not because it contains the stuff you stick in your swimming pool. Countless poisons contain carbon, yet you eat it all the time.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: salimoneus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,888
    Listen, the sucralose gets broken down by your system, and the chlorine is split apart and absorbed. Even though Splenda would like you to think that sucralose is completely inert and passes completely unchanged through your system, that is just not true. A sizable portion of the sucralose that passes through your system IS indeed broken down into it's components. Do a search, the FDA has research proving this, but they are too busy with their own agenda to bother with long term studies and valid scientific findings.

    Did you ever read how Donald Rumsfeld used his influence to push Nutrasweet through the process? Even though there were piles of scientific studies suggesting the stuff should not come anywhere near humans.

    But it's okay, you should trust the FDA, they are only looking out for your best interest right?

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation: salimoneus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,888
    Quote Originally Posted by sean salach
    I could be way off base here, and if that's the case, so be it, but:

    co2 has Oxygen in it, even though it's spelled out Carbon DiOxide. that would lead me to reason that scientists change the spelling of one of the elements in a compound. I'm pretty sure Sodium Chloride, salt, is sodium and chlorine.


    Not that Monster is anything but a bunch of jack asses with this stuff.

    The big difference is that salt (NaCl) dissolves into Na+ and Cl− ions. Cl- is chloride not chlorine.

    As per http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/infocenter/minerals/sodium/

    Sodium (Na+) and chloride (Cl-) are the principal ions in the fluid outside of cells (extracellular fluid), which includes blood plasma. As such, they play critical roles in a number of life-sustaining processes (2).

    When sucralose breaks down, chlorine atoms are released, not chloride.

    I'm not a biologist but there is a difference between the two. One is stable and essential for life, the other is toxic.

  22. #22
    Bicyclochondriac.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    13,387
    Quote Originally Posted by salimoneus
    The big difference is that salt (NaCl) dissolves into Na+ and Cl− ions. Cl- is chloride not chlorine.

    As per http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/infocenter/minerals/sodium/




    When sucralose breaks down, chlorine atoms are released, not chloride.

    I'm not a biologist but there is a difference between the two. One is stable and essential for life, the other is toxic.
    1- A chloride ion IS a chlorine atom.

    2- Where have you read that the breakdown releases a lone chlorine atom? I have seen claims that the sucrolose can break down, but the chlorine atom is associated with a larger organic compound (the one I have seen refered to is 1,6-dichlorofructose).

    I'm not going to argue whether sucrolose is safe, but your assertion that this has anything to do with the chlorine you throw in your pool is way off base. I have read a few of the concerns about sucrolose, and that is not one of them.

  23. #23
    Bicyclochondriac.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    13,387
    Quote Originally Posted by salimoneus
    not trying to derail this thread any worse, but i missed this one.

    organocholrides? yea, they are in the pesticide family. do a search. sound safe now?
    I think you are really confused....

    All "organochloride" means is that it is an organic molecule with a chlorine atom covalently attached. There are a HUGE variety of them. Some are toxic, some not. You've (naturally) got a whole mess of them in you right now.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation: salimoneus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,888
    Quote Originally Posted by kapusta
    1- A chloride ion IS a chlorine atom.

    2- Where have you read that the breakdown releases a lone chlorine atom? I have seen claims that the sucrolose can break down, but the chlorine atom is associated with a larger organic compound (the one I have seen refered to is 1,6-dichlorofructose).

    I'm not going to argue whether sucrolose is safe, but your assertion that this has anything to do with the chlorine you throw in your pool is way off base. I have read a few of the concerns about sucrolose, and that is not one of them.
    Evidence has shown that the chlorine released is actually a part of another complex molecule called dichlorofructose. There is more info about that here and several other places.

    The point is that we just don't know what negative effects can come from exposure to these chlorine based chemical byproducts. They have not been tested extensively, no long term studies have been done. Why would anyone want to take a chance with a compound that is strikingly similar in structure to toxic pesticides is beyond me. Especially with so many natural sweetening alternatives available like Xylitol and Stevia.

    When the Splenda people tell you that sucralose is not absorbed by the body and is completely safe, and then we come to find out that up to 27% of sucralose is potentially absorbed in humans, that sounds like misinformation and outright lies to me.

    But if you feel safe using this stuff, please by all means don't let me stop you. I guess someone needs to be the guinea pigs since apparently the FDA was so quick to pull the trigger with it's blessing.

  25. #25
    Bicyclochondriac.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    13,387
    Quote Originally Posted by salimoneus
    I may have over simplified. When I said the sucralose does indeed get broken down and chlorine is released, evidence has shown that the chlorine released is actually a part of another complex molecule called dichlorofructose. There is more info about that here and several other places.

    The point is that we just don't know what negative effects can come from exposure to these chlorine based chemical byproducts. They have not been tested extensively, no long term studies have been done. Why would anyone want to take a chance with a compound that is strikingly similar in structure to toxic pesticides is beyond me. Especially with so many natural sweetening alternatives available like Xylitol and Stevia.

    But if you feel safe using this stuff, please by all means don't let me stop you. I guess someone needs to be the guinea pigs since apparently the FDA was so quick to pull the trigger with it's blessing.


    I'm not arguing whether it is safe or not, just that giving bugus/misleading info (such as it realeases the same type of chlorine you put in your pool, or that organochlorides are all a type of pesticide) does not serve any useful purpose and hurts your credibility. That was not oversimplification, it was dead wrong.

    Just give the relevant and accurate info (such as what you just gave in the post I am responding to). That's perfectly valid, and is enough to make me think twice about it's safety.

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation: salimoneus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,888
    Quote Originally Posted by kapusta
    I think you are really confused....

    All "organochloride" means is that it is an organic molecule with a chlorine atom covalently attached. There are a HUGE variety of them. Some are toxic, some not. You've (naturally) got a whole mess of them in you right now.
    No not all of them are toxic, but the majority of organochlorides are poisons, which is why they are so effective as pesticides.

    I trust natural organochlorides such as those found in plant foods, but I do not trust unnatural laboratory concocted chemicals even if the manufacturer claims them to be "safe".

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation: salimoneus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,888
    Quote Originally Posted by kapusta
    1- A chloride ion IS a chlorine atom.
    Here is a short snippet that will help clarify the difference for people that are not molecular biologists (taken from here)

    Table salt as you probably know is sodium chloride. It's considerably more than half by weight made of chlorine atoms. But are these atoms chlorine? No. The aggressive yellow gas is now locked up chemically and has formed a colorless crystalline solid. It's not really chlorine anymore. It is chloride. It has accepted one electron from sodium and in doing so become a very different entity.
    Someone followed up that post with a very good response, which follows...

    I don't drink chlorine, but I do eat natural chlorides such as potassium chloride, magnesium chloride, sodium chloride, and the chloride compounds found in foods. There is a difference in the way the body uses it and its toxic levels.

    I avoid ingesting ALL chlorine that is NOT compounded by nature. I avoid the chlorine in Splenda because when I get into Splenda accidentally (which is easy to do these days), I feel pain in my kidneys within a few hours.
    I hope this helps people make their own judgements.

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation: salimoneus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,888
    Anyway, back to the topic at hand. I wrote Monster as soon as this story came out several days ago, and have signed the petition. I'd also like to contact the microbrewery about supporting them, and maybe have a six pack of the Vermonster shipped out to me.

  29. #29
    since 4/10/2009
    Reputation: Harold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    18,531
    Quote Originally Posted by salimoneus
    Here is a short snippet that will help clarify the difference for people that are not molecular biologists (taken from here)



    Someone followed up that post with a very good response, which follows...



    I hope this helps people make their own judgements.
    Someone with clearly no understanding of chemistry should NOT be spewing forth bunk about it on the internet. A chlorine atom is a chlorine atom. The noxious chlorine gas used as a poison is structurally TWO chlorine atoms bonded together. Pool chlorine is ACTUALLY Sodium Hypochlorite...or bleach. Not the same as Sodium Chloride or Potassium Chloride or one of the multitude of chlorine-containing molecules we consume with food on a daily basis. Let's not mention that our OWN bodies produce Hydrogen Chloride (hydrochloric acid) for use in our stomachs to digest food. Where do you think that chloride comes from? And bleach has been used as a water disinfectant for a REALLY long time. Chloride is simply an ion of chlorine which has gained an electron. Its nucleus is identical to every other chlorine atom. The only difference is its collection of electrons. Chloride IS a nutrient our body uses (look up the biochemistry of nerve transmission or muscle contractions someday).

    Some chlorine-containing compounds are a problem. Some are not. Simply because something is an 'organichloride' means nothing about its actual function. That is simply a reference to its general structure. Slap a COOH group on it and it's one thing. Replace that with an NH3 and it's something else. It would still be an "organochloride" but changing its functional groups changes the ways in which it is chemically and biologically active. A compound is more accurately described by its functional groups, and a chloride ion is not a functional group.

    I'd like to see a table listing 'organochlorides' and their functionality...whether they are toxic to biological systems or not. But you're not going to produce it, are you? Because you're comfortable with your claim that a majority of them are poisons, aren't you?

    I don't make any claims about Splenda or the products of its digestion. It is what it is. I consume it on occasion and haven't had any problems. Your "kidney pain" makes me wonder about you, however. Last I checked, our internal organs had VERY few pain receptors.

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Bike Doc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    418
    If more people rode more bikes, more places, more often, the world would be a more better place!

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation: salimoneus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,888
    Quote Originally Posted by NateHawk
    Someone with clearly no understanding of chemistry should NOT be spewing forth bunk about it on the internet. A chlorine atom is a chlorine atom. The noxious chlorine gas used as a poison is structurally TWO chlorine atoms bonded together. Pool chlorine is ACTUALLY Sodium Hypochlorite...or bleach. Not the same as Sodium Chloride or Potassium Chloride or one of the multitude of chlorine-containing molecules we consume with food on a daily basis. Let's not mention that our OWN bodies produce Hydrogen Chloride (hydrochloric acid) for use in our stomachs to digest food. Where do you think that chloride comes from? And bleach has been used as a water disinfectant for a REALLY long time. Chloride is simply an ion of chlorine which has gained an electron. Its nucleus is identical to every other chlorine atom. The only difference is its collection of electrons. Chloride IS a nutrient our body uses (look up the biochemistry of nerve transmission or muscle contractions someday).

    Some chlorine-containing compounds are a problem. Some are not. Simply because something is an 'organichloride' means nothing about its actual function. That is simply a reference to its general structure. Slap a COOH group on it and it's one thing. Replace that with an NH3 and it's something else. It would still be an "organochloride" but changing its functional groups changes the ways in which it is chemically and biologically active. A compound is more accurately described by its functional groups, and a chloride ion is not a functional group.

    I'd like to see a table listing 'organochlorides' and their functionality...whether they are toxic to biological systems or not. But you're not going to produce it, are you? Because you're comfortable with your claim that a majority of them are poisons, aren't you?

    I don't make any claims about Splenda or the products of its digestion. It is what it is. I consume it on occasion and haven't had any problems. Your "kidney pain" makes me wonder about you, however. Last I checked, our internal organs had VERY few pain receptors.
    I don't know where you get kidney pain from, maybe you replied to the wrong thread? No I've never had kidney pain when consuming Splenda or any other artificial sweetner, but just because I don't feel any immediate symptoms doesn't mean it must be safe. I tend to use logic and reasoning, and if it's artificial chemical crap that my body was not designed to handle, then I'm not going to consume it.

    You obviously have no clue about how chlorine and chloride differ. I would suggest doing some reading so that you understand this very basic concept.

    None of what you said disputes the fact that these chemical sweeteners are unnatural, and unnatural compounds with chlorine can be very dangerous. Especially when there has been so little testing done like is the case with Splenda.

    Do you know what dichlorofructose is? Do you know if it has any harmful effects on the body? No, nobody does because it hasn't been tested. But please don't let me stop you from ingesting that chemical crap, like I said before someone needs to be lab rats.

    If an unnatural compound created in a test tube, is in the same chemical family as pesticides, doesn't that give you even the slightest pause as to what it really is? Does it not concern you that there have been so very few human trials with this stuff? Apparently not.

    I'm not claiming to be a molecular biologist, and have not made any false claims, only generalizations. I'm just trying to point out that "Made from sugar" is crap and people should look past the marketing slogan and ask themselves what the hell this stuff (and anything other ingredient you can't pronounce) really is.

  32. #32
    Bicyclochondriac.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    13,387
    Quote Originally Posted by salimoneus
    You obviously have no clue about how chlorine and chloride differ. I would suggest doing some reading so that you understand this very basic concept.
    No, he is basically correct. You are very confused about what the terms chlorine and chloride refer to.

    You need to understand that the term "chlorine" can mean a chlorine atom, OR the elemental form of chlorine (Cl2, a gas), OR one of the chlorine-containing salt that you throw in your pool (in this case "chlorine" is just a shortened name for sodium hypochlorite, and I think there may be others).

    "Chloride" can refer to a chloride ion, which IS a chlorine atom which has picked up an extra electron OR it can be used as part of a chemical name for a molecule that includes chlorine atoms. "Cloride" can also refer to the classification of compound which contains chlorine. In this respect, Sucrolose is an organoCHLORIDE.

    The "chlorine" in sucrolose is a chlorine atom attached covalently to the sugar molecule. This is NOT the same thing as chlorine gas or chlorine that you put in your pool. The same is true of dichlorofructose (yes I do know what that is, it is a fructose molecule with two of the -OH groups are replaced with -Cl atoms).

    It is pretty clear that you do not have a strong sense of chemistry. That's fine, most people do not. But it is WAY off base for you to be telling someone to go do some reading on something when it is quite clear that they understand it much better than you do, which NateHawk apparently does.

  33. #33
    banned
    Reputation: Uncle Jemima's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    510
    Whores.

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation: salimoneus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,888
    Quote Originally Posted by kapusta
    No, he is basically correct. You are very confused about what the terms chlorine and chloride refer to.

    You need to understand that the term "chlorine" can mean a chlorine atom, OR the elemental form of chlorine (Cl2, a gas), OR one of the chlorine-containing salt that you throw in your pool (in this case "chlorine" is just a shortened name for sodium hypochlorite, and I think there may be others).

    "Chloride" can refer to a chloride ion, which IS a chlorine atom which has picked up an extra electron OR it can be used as part of a chemical name for a molecule that includes chlorine atoms. "Cloride" can also refer to the classification of compound which contains chlorine. In this respect, Sucrolose is an organoCHLORIDE.

    The "chlorine" in sucrolose is a chlorine atom attached covalently to the sugar molecule. This is NOT the same thing as chlorine gas or chlorine that you put in your pool. The same is true of dichlorofructose (yes I do know what that is, it is a fructose molecule with two of the -OH groups are replaced with -Cl atoms).

    It is pretty clear that you do not have a strong sense of chemistry. That's fine, most people do not. But it is WAY off base for you to be telling someone to go do some reading on something when it is quite clear that they understand it much better than you do, which NateHawk apparently does.
    LOL are you seriously still stuck on the swimming pool thing? I will admit that when I mentioned the chlorine pool cleaner, I never intended for that to be taken literally. It was clearly an exaggeration, who in their right mind would think that any substance releasing a pool cleaner would actually be so widely in use? That's ridiculous, and if you need to base your argument on such a silly premise, then you really don't have much of an argument do you.

    The exaggeration was made to point out the potential dangers of substances with chlorine, and in this case Splenda and dichlorofructose. We clearly do not know enough about either of them to make judgements about their safety.

    Can you show me some studies of dichlorofructose and what it does to blood cells and tisue? Oh that's right you can't because they don't flipping exist.

    Why don't you try commenting on the dozens of other valid points I have made, like the one I just made, and forget about the swimming pool for once, It's irrelevant to the heart of this discussion. But I don't think you really have much else to say, so please continue to whine about hot tubs...

  35. #35
    since 4/10/2009
    Reputation: Harold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    18,531
    Quote Originally Posted by salimoneus
    LOL are you seriously still stuck on the swimming pool thing? I will admit that when I mentioned the chlorine pool cleaner, I never intended for that to be taken literally. It was clearly an exaggeration, who in their right mind would think that any substance releasing a pool cleaner would actually be so widely in use? That's ridiculous, and if you need to base your argument on such a silly premise, then you really don't have much of an argument do you.

    The exaggeration was made to point out the potential dangers of substances with chlorine, and in this case Splenda and dichlorofructose. We clearly do not know enough about either of them to make judgements about their safety.

    Can you show me some studies of dichlorofructose and what it does to blood cells and tisue? Oh that's right you can't because they don't flipping exist.

    Why don't you try commenting on the dozens of other valid points I have made, like the one I just made, and forget about the swimming pool for once, It's irrelevant to the heart of this discussion. But I don't think you really have much else to say, so please continue to whine about hot tubs...
    You brought up the swimming pool thing. Not anyone else. Sodium hypochlorite is bleach. It's a salt. When you buy it for your laundry or for cleaning, it comes dissolved in water. You can also buy it in a crystalline form for your pool. Same chemical. Different concentrations. It has been used for DECADES to purify drinking water. It is still not uncommonly used to treat backcountry drinking water.

    Oh, and here are some studies on dichlorofructose. Have fun with those. Because with your CLEAR mastery of basic chemistry, organic chemistry, and biochemistry, you'll be able to understand that stuff, right? Specifically targeting dangerous chlorine-containing compounds for your rants completely discounts the fact that if you did not consume chlorine in your diet...your nerve transmission would stop and you would die. Because it's not listed on your food labels doesn't mean jack. It IS one of the substances tested for on my biweekly blood tests.

    Let's see...I'll go and target some dangerous oxygen-containing compounds to make you scared of breathing and drinking. Carbon dioxide can kill you. It even has TWO oxygens! Carbon monoxide is especially toxic. Boycott dihydrogen monoxide! Oh, wait...

    You can whine all you want about chemistry. The fact is that some chemicals are are fine, even though some are not. The ones that are not fine contain ALL of the same atoms as the ones that serve as nutrients. So you can't say that chlorine or chloride is bad for you as a rule, because some compounds that contain chlorine/chloride are necessary for LIFE.

  36. #36
    ride the moment
    Reputation: Dogbrain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    824
    I am a Chemical Engineer and NateHawk has nailed it down. Take the carbon dioxide/carbon monoxide example. They each kill you for very different reasons. If you inhale a 10% CO2 gas mixture, the CO2 will absorb into your blood stream and lower the pH effectively turning your blood into acid which will stop your heart. CO on the other hand binds with your hemoglobin and prevents it from picking up oxygen. The devil is in the bonds, not the atoms.

    I am in no way advocating consumption of energy drinks, but that is because refined sugar is bad for you and that reaction mechanism has been very thoroughly documented. Don't drink soda or eat candy either. At least not every day and never in large quantities.

    Nate- You'd think that the severe oxidation resulting from exposure to dihydrogen dioxide would have, by association, put dihydrogen monoxide on his short list!
    Hey Butthead, are we gonna die? - Beavis

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    226
    Well looks like monster has dropped the case...

    http://www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp?S=11362590

    Its a joke that it had to get to this point, the resolution was suggested by rock art earlier but turned down by monster, then later agreed to, guess some lawyers need some more time on the books to pay for christmas....

  38. #38
    since 4/10/2009
    Reputation: Harold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    18,531
    Quote Originally Posted by Dogbrain
    I am a Chemical Engineer and NateHawk has nailed it down. Take the carbon dioxide/carbon monoxide example. They each kill you for very different reasons. If you inhale a 10% CO2 gas mixture, the CO2 will absorb into your blood stream and lower the pH effectively turning your blood into acid which will stop your heart. CO on the other hand binds with your hemoglobin and prevents it from picking up oxygen. The devil is in the bonds, not the atoms.

    I am in no way advocating consumption of energy drinks, but that is because refined sugar is bad for you and that reaction mechanism has been very thoroughly documented. Don't drink soda or eat candy either. At least not every day and never in large quantities.

    Nate- You'd think that the severe oxidation resulting from exposure to dihydrogen dioxide would have, by association, put dihydrogen monoxide on his short list!
    -snicker-

    I am not a chemist. However, my education has required that I have a basic background in chemistry. Therefore, I've got a few years under my belt. I am working to cut HFCS from my diet. More because I don't like HOW it's made, less for what it actually is. I do like soda...but the root beer I'm currently drinking uses cane sugar. Not perfect, but better.

    You want a sweetener that is both calorie-free and "natural"? Look into stevia. Not easily available in the states, currently. Regardless, NO sweeteners, regardless of their source, are completely unrefined. Getting sugar from cane or sugar beets is a serious industrial process.

  39. #39
    Bicyclochondriac.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    13,387
    Quote Originally Posted by salimoneus
    LOL are you seriously still stuck on the swimming pool thing? I will admit that when I mentioned the chlorine pool cleaner, I never intended for that to be taken literally. It was clearly an exaggeration, who in their right mind would think that any substance releasing a pool cleaner would actually be so widely in use? That's ridiculous, and if you need to base your argument on such a silly premise, then you really don't have much of an argument do you.

    The exaggeration was made to point out the potential dangers of substances with chlorine, and in this case Splenda and dichlorofructose. We clearly do not know enough about either of them to make judgements about their safety.

    Can you show me some studies of dichlorofructose and what it does to blood cells and tisue? Oh that's right you can't because they don't flipping exist.

    Why don't you try commenting on the dozens of other valid points I have made, like the one I just made, and forget about the swimming pool for once, It's irrelevant to the heart of this discussion. But I don't think you really have much else to say, so please continue to whine about hot tubs...
    I never said sucrolose was necessarily safe. I really don't care enough to argue about that. Maybe it is, maybe not.

    I DO have a problem with the chemistry related misinformation and confusion you keep spouting about chlorine. Even worse, you go out of your way to tell Nate he does not have a clue about it when he is right and you are clueless.

    Just stop spewing BS about something you know nothing about (chemistry) and I'll stop harping on it.

  40. #40
    Bicyclochondriac.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    13,387
    Quote Originally Posted by Dogbrain
    Nate- You'd think that the severe oxidation resulting from exposure to dihydrogen dioxide would have, by association, put dihydrogen monoxide on his short list!
    Dihydrogen monoxide IS very dangerous. Inhaling is soften fatal. It can corrode many metals, and has even been shown to break down rocks! Yet the government insists it is safe, (the DHM interests are HUGE), and it is nearly impossible to avoid in our diet!

  41. #41
    banned
    Reputation: Uncle Jemima's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    510
    Quote Originally Posted by plate
    Well looks like monster has dropped the case...

    http://www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp?S=11362590

    Its a joke that it had to get to this point, the resolution was suggested by rock art earlier but turned down by monster, then later agreed to, guess some lawyers need some more time on the books to pay for christmas....
    The whole proceeding has ulterior motives in bold-letters across it. When Mr. Nadeau (ROCK ART) was filed 'Cease and Disist" on the 14th of Sept., he immediately contacted his Copyright advisors and he had no problem or infringement. Thing of it is, anyone can file motion over anything, your dog is eating too-much corn so stop walking it on my Trail for ex., but it needs merit. This did and does not, and exploited infrastructure to a fault.

  42. #42
    Bicyclochondriac.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    13,387
    Quote Originally Posted by plate
    Well looks like monster has dropped the case...

    http://www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp?S=11362590

    Its a joke that it had to get to this point, the resolution was suggested by rock art earlier but turned down by monster, then later agreed to, guess some lawyers need some more time on the books to pay for christmas....
    Well, I am glad this worked out for Rock Art. The solution seems so reasonable, yet had this not gotten so much public attention (particularly in VT), then Rock Art would not have stood a chance.

    Edit: As soon as I posted, I heard the story on NPR.

  43. #43
    I live to bike
    Reputation: Jwiffle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,232
    Ok, call me stupid, but I don't even understand the thinking by Hansen Beverage company that Rock Art's "Vermonster" somehow could infringe on their "Monster" energy drink. It is easily apparent to me that the main word in Rock Art's beer is "Vermont," since they are in Vermont, and has no connection in name to Hansen's nasty energy drink.

    It's like the case a I heard where Federal Express sued a coffee shop over the name "Federal Espresso." And FedEx won, which is ridiculuous. How would someone confuse a coffee shop with a package delivery service? If I was FedEx, I would have used the name to my advantage - seen if the coffee shop would have been willing to double as a service location, given them discounts on shipments, etc, in return for free coffee for my employees at that location.
    Stop in at Element Sports. www.elementsport.com
    Get Out! Have Fun!

  44. #44
    Bicyclochondriac.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    13,387
    Quote Originally Posted by Jwiffle
    Ok, call me stupid, but I don't even understand the thinking by Hansen Beverage company that Rock Art's "Vermonster" somehow could infringe on their "Monster" energy drink. It is easily apparent to me that the main word in Rock Art's beer is "Vermont," since they are in Vermont, and has no connection in name to Hansen's nasty energy drink.
    Agreed, pure BS of a lawsuit. Personally, I think that they were thinking that they might someday like to put out an alcoholic drink with the Monster branding, and there would then be a conflict. I thought is was interesting that Rock Art agreed not to go into the energy drink business, but Monster did not need to agree to refrain from going into the beer market.

    It's like the case a I heard where Federal Express sued a coffee shop over the name "Federal Espresso." And FedEx won, which is ridiculuous. How would someone confuse a coffee shop with a package delivery service? If I was FedEx, I would have used the name to my advantage - seen if the coffee shop would have been willing to double as a service location, given them discounts on shipments, etc, in return for free coffee for my employees at that location.
    I think that is a little different, because the coffee shop was clearly using the recognition of the FedEx name for there business.

  45. #45
    banned
    Reputation: Uncle Jemima's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    510
    Quote Originally Posted by kapusta
    ...and there would then be a conflict. ...Rock Art agreed not to go into the energy drink business, but Monster did not need to agree...
    Any future conflict has been resolved. 'MONSTER' cited the label itself of 'VERMONSTER' as a dispute. Not the contents, nor any product development.
    As far as ROCK ART conceeding to not enter the Energy Drink business, it is because they brew Beer. Nothing needed to be said of MONSTER and it subjecting itself to each US State Liquor Commission. That they did is pomp and arrogance.

  46. #46
    ride the moment
    Reputation: Dogbrain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    824
    Quote Originally Posted by NateHawk
    -snicker-

    I am not a chemist. However, my education has required that I have a basic background in chemistry. Therefore, I've got a few years under my belt. I am working to cut HFCS from my diet. More because I don't like HOW it's made, less for what it actually is. I do like soda...but the root beer I'm currently drinking uses cane sugar. Not perfect, but better.

    You want a sweetener that is both calorie-free and "natural"? Look into stevia. Not easily available in the states, currently. Regardless, NO sweeteners, regardless of their source, are completely unrefined. Getting sugar from cane or sugar beets is a serious industrial process.
    Shady business and agriculture aside, HFCS is pretty much the worst kind of sugar to consume. Although beet/cane sugar is not too far behind. The important focus is on reaction kinetics, not the molecules themselves.

    If you remember freshmen Biology, before the Krebs cycle, the first step in cellular respiration is the conversion of glucose to fructose. Fructose is actually the only sugar that an individual cell can metabolize within its mitochondria. If fructose is present inside a cell, then the mitochondria will metabolize it. The conversion of glucose to fructose is a key rate-limiting step in your metabolism. By dumping large amounts of pure fructose into your blood, you are essentially bypassing that rate-limiting step. So if you drink a soda, your blood sugar spikes causing rapid insulin production. However, the accessibility of fructose to the cells shoots your metabolism through the roof resulting in a sharp drop in blood sugar levels. These swings in blood sugar and insulin production wreak havoc on your pancreas.

    Sucrose(beet/cane sugar) is simply a glucose and fructose molecule bound together. It is easily hydrolized and thus releases about half its mass in fructose into your blood. Furthermore, while glucose is regulated as mentioned above, that regulation evolved in the presence of naturally occurring sugars which, for the most part, are larger and more complex than sucrose. The glucose conversion within your cell is supposed to be a last regulation step, after complex sugars and starches have been broken down by your digestive acids, etc. This is why a glass of orange juice does not affect your blood sugar the way soda does. The mass of "sugar" in each might be the same, but there will be several reaction steps involved in making the OJ sugar available to your cells, while the HFCS will bypass all of that and just throw them into overdrive.
    Hey Butthead, are we gonna die? - Beavis

  47. #47
    since 4/10/2009
    Reputation: Harold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    18,531
    Quote Originally Posted by Dogbrain
    Shady business and agriculture aside, HFCS is pretty much the worst kind of sugar to consume. Although beet/cane sugar is not too far behind. The important focus is on reaction kinetics, not the molecules themselves.

    If you remember freshmen Biology, before the Krebs cycle, the first step in cellular respiration is the conversion of glucose to fructose. Fructose is actually the only sugar that an individual cell can metabolize within its mitochondria. If fructose is present inside a cell, then the mitochondria will metabolize it. The conversion of glucose to fructose is a key rate-limiting step in your metabolism. By dumping large amounts of pure fructose into your blood, you are essentially bypassing that rate-limiting step. So if you drink a soda, your blood sugar spikes causing rapid insulin production. However, the accessibility of fructose to the cells shoots your metabolism through the roof resulting in a sharp drop in blood sugar levels. These swings in blood sugar and insulin production wreak havoc on your pancreas.

    Sucrose(beet/cane sugar) is simply a glucose and fructose molecule bound together. It is easily hydrolized and thus releases about half its mass in fructose into your blood. Furthermore, while glucose is regulated as mentioned above, that regulation evolved in the presence of naturally occurring sugars which, for the most part, are larger and more complex than sucrose. The glucose conversion within your cell is supposed to be a last regulation step, after complex sugars and starches have been broken down by your digestive acids, etc. This is why a glass of orange juice does not affect your blood sugar the way soda does. The mass of "sugar" in each might be the same, but there will be several reaction steps involved in making the OJ sugar available to your cells, while the HFCS will bypass all of that and just throw them into overdrive.
    Fair enough. But IIRC, fructose is the most common sugar found in fruits and such. Seems we ought to be able to handle some amount of it. That said, it is wise to limit consumption of sugary things. I don't have many vices, but I do buy soda on occasion. Wifey, OTOH, could stand to cut back on the sugars...women and their cravings.

  48. #48
    I live to bike
    Reputation: Jwiffle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,232
    Quote Originally Posted by kapusta
    I think that is a little different, because the coffee shop was clearly using the recognition of the FedEx name for there business.
    You've lost me on this. I don't understand how anyone would confuse coffee with package delivery. I fail to see how the coffee shop could have taken even one customer away from FedEx. "Oops, I wanted to ship a package, instead I'll have a latte." The name the coffee shop was attempting to use seems easy enough to come up with without having first heard of FedEx.
    Stop in at Element Sports. www.elementsport.com
    Get Out! Have Fun!

  49. #49
    Bicyclochondriac.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    13,387
    Quote Originally Posted by Jwiffle
    You've lost me on this. I don't understand how anyone would confuse coffee with package delivery. I fail to see how the coffee shop could have taken even one customer away from FedEx. "Oops, I wanted to ship a package, instead I'll have a latte." The name the coffee shop was attempting to use seems easy enough to come up with without having first heard of FedEx.
    This has nothing to do with confusion of products or taking customers away. It is a matter of using a brand name that somebody else worked to make recognized and profiting off of it. I have a VERY hard time believing that the name was NOT a play on Federal Express. I am guessing a court would as well. I'm not saying it is right or wrong, I am saying the REASONS for the suit are different than one based on product confusion.

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation: enFuego's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    149

    Cheers to Rock Art Brewery!

    Hansen sent me this email yesterday. Looks like reason prevailed this time. Hooray for the little guy!



    Hansen Beverage Company and Rock Art Brewery
    Reach Trademark Agreement

    October 26, 2009

    Hansen Beverage Company and Rock Art Brewery today issued the following statement in connection with a recent trademark issue:

    Hansen Beverage Company and Rock Art Brewery have reached an amicable agreement under which both companies' respective products will be protected - Hansen's Monster Energy® line of energy drinks and Rock Art's Vermonster beer products.

    > Rodney Sacks, Hansen's chief executive officer, said: "We are pleased that we were able to resolve this matter expeditiously and put the concerns that had arisen behind us so that both parties can concentrate on their day-to-day businesses, selling their respective high-quality products. Our intent in this matter was simply to protect Hansen's trademarks and prevent any likelihood of confusion arising in the future through potential product extensions and was not to prevent Rock Art Brewery from selling their Vermonster beer."

    > Matt Nadeau, owner of Rock Art Brewery, said: "Once Rodney and I were able to talk to each other we quickly appreciated each other's points of view and he acted reasonably, which allowed us to rapidly come to an agreement we are both happy with and allows both of us to move forward positively."

    Contacts:

    Rodney Sacks Matt Nadeau
    Hansen Beverage Company Rock Art Brewery
    (951) 739-6200 (802) 888-9400

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •