That wasn't mentioned in the text. The only chlorine mentioned is the ones that are substituted into the sucrose molecule.
This lends the quoted portion of text the implication that ingesting all chlorine-bearing molecules is bad for you.
You're right, I was wrong in my assumption that it was a chlorine ion. It *is* a chlorine atom.
I just thought that, within the context of the specific article, that paragraph was humorous.
And our bodies break the salt apart into the sodium and chloride ions when the salt is used. The main use of chloride is to make the hydrochloric acid(ANOTHER dangerous chemical) used in our stomachs, though it is also important to proper functioning of the nervous system.
I DO, however, acknowledge that just because something is used inside the body does not mean it can be safely eaten or breathed.
Chlorine is, of course, a toxic gas in it's natural state.
And sodium, while vital to nerve functionality, is only mildly less hazardous in it's natural state.
Sodium is fun. Ever toss it in water? 
Sadly, no.
Interestingly enough, both elements are only useful to biological processes in their ionized forms(positive charge on the sodium atoms, negative on the chlorine ones).
And it's worth noting... Chlorine ions aren't free radicals.
Free radicals are higly-reactive, but uncharged. Ions are charged.
A non-ionized chlorine atom would be a free radical, but we're discussing ions here.
Some free radicals are also incredibly important compounds to life, despite the damage they can do to the body.
As noted above. A good example of this would be oxygen. But since not all the chlorine attaches to the sugar molecule (at least in some forms of manufacturing, there are two different methods) those atoms of chlorine can be present in their 'non-attached' form.
Which is a problem, as our digestive system isn't designed to handle chlorine, even if our body is.
Though we likely get more from our drinking water than artifical sweeteners.
...
Chlorinated water has been linked definitively to cancer, for what it's worth. They greatly reduced the amount of chlorine in it after that, but it's a very strong argument for a decent water filter.
Another site, although sponsored by the Sugar Association, has more information than the site I referenced above.
http://www.truthaboutsplenda.com/
Oooh, fun!
Observation: They make a big deal about the chlorine in the sucralose molecule, and while they mention that it is present in other foods, they attempt to trivialize this by focusing ont he fact that the chlorine in sucralose is artificially injected, which makes no real diffrence to the body.
As a tangental sidenote, while I'm thinking of it... the chlorine in sucralose replaces hydroxyl, which is another free radical. And another compound our body uses.
I have a severe reaction to sucralose. It's the only thing that people actually eat that I've *ever* had a reaction to.
Personally, I avoid all artificial sweeteners. My family's one of the ones that aspartame tastes bitter too, and sucralose has gotten spillover avoidance.
I hesitate to call it an allergy, because I believe that putting something in your body (ie poison) that doesn't belong there technically isn't an allergen.
Sure it is.
Pollen doesn't belong in our bodies, but it's an allergen.
It hasn't been established that sucralose is actually a poison. The best anyone can legitimately say is that it has no long-term saety studies on humans, just rats, rabbits, etc.