When you get a mouth ulcer, it makes sense that spicy and acidic foods
and drinks will hurt like there's no tomorrow.

However, one of life's little mysteries is that chocolate does that too.
It stings like hell. But why? Chocolate doesn't immediately come to mind
when I try to think of foods that would be especially irritating to a
mouth ulcer. What is it in there that causes so much irritation? Normally
chocolate feels so smooth and soothing, like silk. But to a mouth ulcer
it feels like sulfuric acid.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

I'm guessing it could partially be the theobromine, which acts as a vasodilator.

It might open up the blood vessels and cause swelling and irritation - the
opposite effect that caffeine has - which is a vasoconstrictor and reduces the
swelling in the brain so it's not grinding up against the inside of your skull
when you have a throbbing headache.

Chocolate is also known to contain oxalic acid, which I'm guessing is the main
culprit.  It will instantly combine with calcium in your blood to form
needle-shaped calcium oxalate crystals which produce an intense burning
sensation in the mouth.

Get some Anbesol, or see if some tea or coffee (tannins) will form a protective
coating over the affected area.

Post a reply to this message

On 23/08/2013 11:04 PM, Warp wrote:
> However, one of life's little mysteries is that chocolate does that too.
> It stings like hell. But why? Chocolate doesn't immediately come to mind
> when I try to think of foods that would be especially irritating to a
> mouth ulcer. What is it in there that causes so much irritation? Normally
> chocolate feels so smooth and soothing, like silk. But to a mouth ulcer
> it feels like sulfuric acid.

Almost *any* substance will have the wrong osmolarity compared to body 
tissues, so almost any substance hurts when poured into an open wound. 
(About the only exception is suitably concentrated saline.)

The thing about chocolate is that it's very sticky; it coats things, and 
clings to them. So once you get it into the wound, it's quite hard to 
get out again.

(Fun fact: The bodily fluids of almost every large land animal have 
almost exactly the same salinity as sea water.)

Post a reply to this message

Am 24.08.2013 10:02, schrieb Orchid Win7 v1:

> (Fun fact: The bodily fluids of almost every large land animal have
> almost exactly the same salinity as sea water.)

Fun fact #2: The above "fact" is anything but.

The origin of this popular myth is probably that it has been suggested 
that the salinity of mammalian bodily fluids resembles that of the 
/primordial/ oceans, back when life first evolved.

Today's sea water is about 4 times more saline than human blood.

Post a reply to this message

On 24/08/2013 11:55 AM, clipka wrote:
> Today's sea water is about 4 times more saline than human blood.

This claim is surprisingly hard to confirm or refute. The trouble is, 
there are many, many different ways to measure how salty something is. 
Consequently, I'm struggling to find anything that quotes the two 
measurements in the same units, or even using the same dimensions.

Regardless, I'm still waiting to hear why the hell the sea has *any* 
salt in it to start with... I never did understand that part.

Post a reply to this message

Am 24.08.2013 20:01, schrieb Orchid Win7 v1:
> On 24/08/2013 11:55 AM, clipka wrote:
>> Today's sea water is about 4 times more saline than human blood.
>
> This claim is surprisingly hard to confirm or refute. The trouble is,
> there are many, many different ways to measure how salty something is.
> Consequently, I'm struggling to find anything that quotes the two
> measurements in the same units, or even using the same dimensions.

A detailed per-element list can be found in this article:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v3/n1/sodium-chloride-abiogenesis

See table 1 there.

Yes, that's a creationists' page, and the quoted paper appears to be a 
creationist's, too, but I see no reason to doubt the numbers they're 
quoting, as the general order of magnitude appears to match numbers from 
Wikipedia:

(1) The salinity of blood can be inferred from that of medical "normal 
saline" solution:

"The solution is 9 grams of sodium chloridre (NaCl) dissolved in water, 
to a total volume of 1000 ml. [...]. It has a slightly higher degree of 
osmolarity (i.e. more solute per litre) than blood [...]."

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotonic_saline#Normal)

(2) The salinity of salt water is given expressively:

"Seawater has a salinity of roughly 35,000 ppm, equivalent to 35 grams 
of salt per one liter (or kilogram) of water."

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saline_water)


> Regardless, I'm still waiting to hear why the hell the sea has *any*
> salt in it to start with... I never did understand that part.

Never heard of minerals being washed down by rain into the oceans?

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> A detailed per-element list can be found in this article:

> http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v3/n1/sodium-chloride-abiogenesis

> See table 1 there.

> Yes, that's a creationists' page, and the quoted paper appears to be a 
> creationist's, too, but I see no reason to doubt the numbers they're 
> quoting, as the general order of magnitude appears to match numbers from 
> Wikipedia:

Given the propensity of creationists to lie, distort and misinterpret in
order to promote their religion, that puts into question anything that
they write, even if they are just quoting facts.

I would avoid quoting even facts from that source, and instead quote them
from a more reputable one.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

> Yes, that's a creationists' page, and the quoted paper appears to be a
> creationist's, too, but I see no reason to doubt the numbers they're
> quoting, as the general order of magnitude appears to match numbers from
> Wikipedia:
>
> (1) The salinity of blood can be inferred from that of medical "normal
> saline" solution:
>
> "The solution is 9 grams of sodium chloridre (NaCl) dissolved in water,
> to a total volume of 1000 ml. [...]. It has a slightly higher degree of
> osmolarity (i.e. more solute per litre) than blood [...]."
>
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotonic_saline#Normal)
>
> (2) The salinity of salt water is given expressively:
>
> "Seawater has a salinity of roughly 35,000 ppm, equivalent to 35 grams
> of salt per one liter (or kilogram) of water."
>
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saline_water)

So 35 g/L verses 9 g/L, basically.

[You see what I did there? Because blood is mildly basic, right? Right??]

>> Regardless, I'm still waiting to hear why the hell the sea has *any*
>> salt in it to start with... I never did understand that part.
>
> Never heard of minerals being washed down by rain into the oceans?

I've _heard_ this suggestion, but since salt doesn't occur anywhere on 
Earth except in the sea, that doesn't make a lot of sense...

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 24 Aug 2013 21:29:46 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

>> Never heard of minerals being washed down by rain into the oceans?
> 
> I've _heard_ this suggestion, but since salt doesn't occur anywhere on
> Earth except in the sea, that doesn't make a lot of sense...

Um what?

http://chemistry.about.com/od/acidsbases/a/aa110204a.htm

And:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonneville_Salt_Flats

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Am 24.08.2013 21:52, schrieb Warp:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>> A detailed per-element list can be found in this article:
>
>> http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v3/n1/sodium-chloride-abiogenesis
>
>> See table 1 there.
>
>> Yes, that's a creationists' page, and the quoted paper appears to be a
>> creationist's, too, but I see no reason to doubt the numbers they're
>> quoting, as the general order of magnitude appears to match numbers from
>> Wikipedia:
>
> Given the propensity of creationists to lie, distort and misinterpret in
> order to promote their religion, that puts into question anything that
> they write, even if they are just quoting facts.

The same thing can be said about most scientific studies as well (except 
that there it's not about promoting a religion, but the sponsor's 
interests).

As long as it's plain, easily verifiable numbers, I see no reason to be 
wary of creationists than of anyone else (as long as it's not the type 
relying primarily on populism, but rather the one trying to give 
themselves an air of serious science). After all, they have no interest 
in making themselves too easily refutable.

> I would avoid quoting even facts from that source, and instead quote them
> from a more reputable one.

I'd have prefered some other source myself, but either there aren't any, 
or they're drowning in an overabundance of creationist sources. (Or I 
just used the wrong search terms on Google.)

Post a reply to this message