Log in

View Full Version : Terminoligy


momoese
08-26-2009, 02:09 PM
Richard, do you agree with this information from Wikipedia?

Mixed definitions of 'organic'

There can be confusion as to the veracity of the term 'organic' when applied to agricultural systems and fertilizer. The problem is one of confusion of terminology between agricultural and chemical disciplines.

Minerals such as mined rock phosphate, sulfate of potash and limestone are also considered organic fertilizers, although they contain no organic (carbon) molecules. Some ambiguity in the usage of the term organic exists; however, it is simple to differentiate with a separation between the scientific and colloqial uses (as in velocity in common usage (Speed) and physics usage(Velocity)--see Velocity (disambiguation)).

Synthetic fertilizers, such as urea and urea formaldehyde, are organic in the sense of the organic chemistry definition of organic, can be supplied organically (agriculturally), but when manufactured as a pure chemical is not organic under organic certification standards[28][29].

Naturally mined powdered limestone[30], mined rock phosphate and sodium nitrate, are inorganic (in a chemical sense) in that they contain no carbon molecules, and are energetically-intensive to harvest, but are approved for organic agriculture in minimal amounts[30][31][32].

The common thread that can be seen through these examples is that organic agriculture defines itself through minimal processing (e.g. via chemical energy such as petroleum—see Haber process), as well as being naturally-occurring (as is, or via natural biological processing such as the composting process).

Richard
08-26-2009, 02:29 PM
No, especially since many water soluble fertilizers are simply scooped from the ground, sorted on size, and then sold in bags. No more (and often less) processing than compost sold in a bag. Are you gardening organically? (http://www.plantsthatproduce.com/column/PTP_2008_09_Organic.htm)

momoese
08-26-2009, 02:35 PM
Ok let's simplify, do you agree with this?

Some ambiguity in the usage of the term organic exists; however, it is simple to differentiate with a separation between the scientific and colloqial uses (as in velocity in common usage (Speed) and physics usage(Velocity)--see Velocity (disambiguation)).

Richard
08-26-2009, 08:38 PM
Mitchel,
Ironically I drove within a few blocks of your home earlier today!

From your user title and many posts throughout this site it is plain to see that you are enthralled with what advertising agencies term "organic lifestyle". And since you have also stated that you have little understanding of the biochemistry of plant nutrition, this "organic lifestyle" is a matter of faith for you. So be it, I have an equally hollow faith in the origin of conifers.

It is also plain for everyone to see that I strongly object to "organic lifestyle" marketing and prostilization. For beginning gardeners, the ambiguous terminology and often vacuous phrases lead to misunderstandings, polarized decision-making, and imprudent purchases. A better approach is to use the established vocabulary and content of entry-level horticultural courses at accredited colleges. This way people can make informed decisions about the needs of their plants, the results they want, environmentally responsible choices, and economically prudent resources and products.

momoese
08-26-2009, 09:02 PM
Ok let's simplify, do you agree with this?

And?

Mitchel,
Ironically I drove within a few blocks of your home earlier today!

From your user title and many posts throughout this site it is plain to see that you are enthralled with what advertising agencies term "organic lifestyle". And since you have also stated that you have little understanding of the biochemistry of plant nutrition, this "organic lifestyle" is a matter of faith for you. So be it, I have an equally hollow faith in the origin of conifers.

I

FYI, I've been growing organically since I was 6 years old, long before I moved to this neighborhood and long before any organic lifestyle was being promoted. Anything else smart guy? You're about as full full of sh!t as a Christmas turkey.

hammer
08-26-2009, 09:27 PM
Thats just to funny mitchell. what do you guys use for fertilizer if you dont use compost or manure.

Richard
08-26-2009, 10:09 PM
Anything else ... ?

http://www.bananas.org/gallery/watermark.php?file=10590&size=1 (http://www.bananas.org/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=10590)

Patty in Wisc
08-26-2009, 11:43 PM
Shannon, he uses compost & manure but does not use the chem ferts such as miracle grow etc.
What's up with the pic? That reminds me of Richard responding to Harvey with blank emails. I think I'm outa here...too weird.

Richard
08-26-2009, 11:53 PM
That reminds me of Richard responding to Harvey with blank emails.

First I've heard of it. Harvey sends me an email about once a month or so and I believe all my replies have contained text.

Patty in Wisc
08-27-2009, 12:02 AM
Richard, you didn't respond here for about 2 months when you did the AgriStart orders. No one could get ahold of you to find out about our orders. Harvey posted that he sent you a nice email & you replied with a blank email - at least a few times. I wouldn't repeat it if it wasn't posted here. He even FWD'd me at least one so, I saw it. If you don't remember, you musta had a black out or something. Harvey is not a liar & neither am I.
He was worried about you & emailed to ask if you needed any help. You clicked on 'reply' & 'send' without writing anything. You did this 3 times that I know of. I went back & found one.

Richard
08-27-2009, 12:18 AM
Richard, you didn't respond here for about 2 months when you did the AgriStart orders. No one could get ahold of you to find out about our orders. Harvey posted that he sent you a nice email & you replied with a blank email - at least a few times. I wouldn't repeat it if it wasn't posted here. He even FWD'd me at least one so, I saw it. If you don't remember, you musta had a black out or something. Harvey is not a liar & neither am I.

Like I said, first I've heard of it. No one is accusing you of lying!

Many, many people did contact me by email and found out about their orders. I also kept the order status page updated. I had a mail filter running at the time and a few may have erroneously bounced. I have never intentionally sent a blank email -- although once in a blue moon I have by mistake, then follow up with a real message!

Patty in Wisc
08-27-2009, 12:57 AM
You did it 3 times in a row to Harvey so that can't be a mistake after the first time.
So, what's up w/ the pic? That's as good as a blank answer/email. Nevermind, I don't expect an answer & don't think I want to hear it.

Richard
08-27-2009, 07:21 AM
You did it 3 times in a row to Harvey so that can't be a mistake after the first time.

I did have an automated email filter running at the time and a few messages might have erroneously bounced. I don't doubt what you are saying but Harvey never mentioned it to me.

Patty in Wisc
08-27-2009, 11:35 AM
"I received an e-mail from Richard which was sent as a group broadcast. I can't find the e-mail right now but I thought they were going to be shipped last week. I want to make sure they don't arrive when I'm gone. I've tried to e-mail Richard several times but he seems to be blocking e-mails from me. All of my e-mails come forwarded back to me with a blank reply."

Thanks,

Harvey
````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
That was post #359 on the Agri Start thread. You used Harvey & few others -incl me, to post your messages on the thread for you. I wouldn't do it as I am not your personal messenger. #359 is prolly page 17 or 18..read on to the next page there.
You do have a tendency to cause frustration & anger.

Richard
08-27-2009, 11:57 AM
You do have a tendency to cause frustration & anger.

I cannot accept responsibility for emotions of others caused by their own impatience and/or misunderstandings.

For the group order of TC's in particular, there were three individuals who were not satisified with the weekly updates made to the status file -- instead they wanted daily if not hourly updates made to the Agristarts thread. Everyone else was more than satisfied with my efforts.

With regard to the plants of the group order that were damaged or killed during shipment: This was quite a learning curve for me. I had never shipped young plants across the country and made it clear that no one was going to pay for my "education". In every single case reported to me, I refunded the entire cost of the plant(s) and the associated shipping costs to the recipient.

If someone still has an outstanding issue with the Agristarts order I encourage them to email me with their concerns. I am certain we can have a quick resolution.

Richard
08-27-2009, 07:39 PM
FYI, I've been growing organically since I was 6 years old, long before I moved to this neighborhood and long before any organic lifestyle was being promoted. Anything else smart guy? You're about as full full of sh!t as a Christmas turkey.

Mitchel, you are a dedicated, extremely skilled gardener. It is very sad that you take criticism of "organic" marketing as a personal insult.

momoese
08-27-2009, 08:52 PM
Mitchel, you are a dedicated, extremely skilled gardener. It is very sad that you take criticism of "organic" marketing as a personal insult.

Wow, did you really just say that? You falsely insinuate that because of my location on this planet I'm some mindless fool that cow tows to an advertising campaign that I'm not even actually aware of, when in reality you know nothing about me or my personal gardening history, then you come back and insult me again claiming that I can't take criticism. You are not only clueless, but also mean spirited. If my grandmother, bless her soul, who taught me how to grow plants were still alive and heard you say that she'd open a can of woop ass on you. Shame on you Richard.

browndrake
08-27-2009, 09:34 PM
I am very new here so I guess that I should just sit and watch, (for all I know such interactions as these are common place here and enjoyed by the participants) but I have learned much from the contributions of so many people here and really enjoy everybody's input... AND I have seen such threads, in other forums, really deteriorate and push people away.

just 2 cents

aaron

Patty in Wisc
08-28-2009, 01:50 AM
I don't remember seeing Mitchel say he's against "organic marketing" which he admits he knows nothing about & prolly doesn't care about the "criticism" of it. Richard, stop turning things around. He's into his own 'organic gardening & that's all he said. Now, you're talking about 'marketing'. Who cares? Ya know, when i go in the produce dept., i never buy organic stuff. It's too expensive & how do I know for sure what it's grown in? I like my own veggies out of my garden - fresh picked. Nothing like it! That's all I know.
How do you know that Mitchel is an extremely skilled gardener? You trying to patranize to make up for more of your false statements? If he wants to grow organically then let it be! Lots of Ppl do. Just cuz you don't like it, leave them alone! It's their own private garden & having nothing to do with commercial sales, so stuff it.

Bob
08-28-2009, 05:01 AM
Aaron, don't let a few of us that bicker occaisionally scare you off. The vast majority here are really only here to share information and have fun. Just that some of of feel strongly that organic growing methods have been under attack for awhile..........things will cool off .....with the weather I suppose.

sbl
08-28-2009, 07:44 AM
Aaron, don't let a few of us that bicker occaisionally scare you off. The vast majority here are really only here to share information and have fun. Just that some of of feel strongly that organic growing methods have been under attack for awhile..........things will cool off .....with the weather I suppose.

I don't believe I have attacked anyone--except for misquoting what I said. I have only tried to explain that the NPK from organic materials and commercial fertilizer are the same to the plant (major difference being rate of availability). I am still waiting for anyone to show me any scientific evidence that commercial fertilizers contain anything that is harmful to the plants or the food (aside from when it is applied in excess).

damaclese
08-28-2009, 08:04 AM
I am very new here so I guess that I should just sit and watch, (for all I know such interactions as these are common place here and enjoyed by the participants) but I have learned much from the contributions of so many people here and really enjoy everybody's input... AND I have seen such threads, in other forums, really deteriorate and push people away.

just 2 cents

aaron this is not the norm here please dont think us all cantankerous

banfan
08-28-2009, 08:19 AM
FWIW a wise old mentor once said: "Friends come and go. Don't try to convice friends to change religion, politics, or gardening habits and you will have plenty of good friends; however, if you get them to change to organic gardening they will be your loyal friends forever."

Richard
08-28-2009, 09:22 AM
Aaron, don't let a few of us that bicker occaisionally scare you off. The vast majority here are really only here to share information and have fun. Just that some of of feel strongly that organic growing methods have been under attack for awhile..........things will cool off .....with the weather I suppose.

None of my comments have been critical of organic gardening methods. They have been directed at misstatements in "organic" marketing and/or prostelization.

My knowledge of Mitchell's skill comes from his 1,000's of posts and 100's of pictures posted here on this site. I have admired and praised his accomplishments many times and will continue to do so.

Mitchel, I have said nothing about you being unable to take criticism. What I pointed out is that you often mistake my criticism of "organic marketing" as a criticism of you. The two are very different. The latter I have never engaged in.

supermario
08-28-2009, 09:39 AM
Why all the personal attacks?

Mitchel, I don't see where Richard has attacked you personally. I've followed the last few threads and have seen you two go back and forth. His last statement was that he thought it was sad that you take his attacks on orgainic marketing as an insult to you. How is that saying you cannot take criticism?

Richard has actually complemented you several times. Anyone who takes a look at the pics in your gallery can see you've had success. However, I could not achieve the same results here using the practices you describe. So, while I envy your success, I simply do not understand why you are bent out of shape..? Is it because Richard is so strongly against organic marketing?..or because you are strongly for it?

Patty, I cannot speak for the beef between you and Richard...but, it seems to be a personal matter that has nothing to do with this thread. I would think you could resolve your differences with him personally. I do agree with your inquiry as to the meaning of the pic though...what's up with that Richard?

Jack Daw
08-28-2009, 09:56 AM
The weather's been hot today (at least here, 90+°F), how about yours? ;)

Richard
08-28-2009, 10:19 AM
Patty,

For several months there have been interventions by members here, moderators, and several offers of reconcilliation but still you persist with baseless personal attacks. Please explain.

... as to the meaning of the pic though...what's up with that Richard?
See The Seven Gables (http://www.bananas.org/f9/seven-gables-9323.html).

momoese
08-28-2009, 10:38 AM
Mitchel,
Ironically I drove within a few blocks of your home earlier today!

From your user title and many posts throughout this site it is plain to see that you are enthralled with what advertising agencies term "organic lifestyle".

Here you are clearly sugesting that I'm "enthralled" with some advertising agencies campaign. Couldn't further from the truth, and it has nothing to do with the subject of this thread. I find this statement not only offensive but also a personal attack.

Mitchel,
this "organic lifestyle" is a matter of faith for you.

This is soooo insulting! The proof is in the pudding. I'm an organic gardener and I know it works, period.

Now please go back to your anti organic lifestyle promoted by the multi national chemical corporations and leave me alone. I'm so over your nonsense.

Richard
08-28-2009, 11:18 AM
Here you are clearly sugesting that I'm "enthralled" with some advertising agencies campaign.

No I'm not. There is a clear difference between being enthralled with an approach and being enthralled with advertising from a company.

I'm an organic gardener and I know it works, period.

That is a statement of faith. Nothing wrong with that, I have beliefs based on faith also.

Patty in Wisc
08-28-2009, 11:29 AM
Patty,

For several months there have been interventions by members here, moderators, and several offers of reconcilliation but still you persist with baseless personal attacks. Please explain.

Here's the same way that you explain things:
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y202/Patty_in_Wisc/atlanticCity.jpg
Nope, I never saw "interventions by members here"
Nope, no "offers of reconciliation"
Nope, no "baseless personal attacks" by me

Richard
08-28-2009, 12:19 PM
Nope, I never saw "interventions by members here"

Most recently by supermario in this thread.

Nope, no "offers of reconciliation"

Most recently a few posts down in this thread.

Nope, no "baseless personal attacks" by me

Well here's a few examples:

Quite a while back you accussed me of driving Joe Real to anger in the AZ-41 thread. The reality was that Harvey privately (and falsely) told Joe that I was secretly having Grow More develop an identical product to compete with him. Harvey's assumption and Joe's rancor that followed had nothing to do with my pointing out that there are cheaper sources for Melaleuca oil.

More recently you accussed me of being responsible for the closure of OrganicBananac's thread. In reality, it was his cursing at Jack Daw that caused the thread closure.

In this thread you accuse me of patronizing Mitchel to make up for false statements. Yet, no false statements have been tendered.

Patty, these are just a few of the personal attacks you have made over the past months. You are ready to pick a fight about most anything I post about -- even pictures :D

Since you have not done so yet, please explain.

harveyc
08-28-2009, 01:59 PM
I didn't read all the posts, but will only address these two items.

Richard, I had several bounced e-mails in April and May and sent you one message from another account, but never replied. It seemed you didn't want to communicate.

Your statement that I told Joe publicly nd "secretely" of your plans with Grow More is false. I did ask You if you had any such plans. The only private comment I made to Joe during a visit I had at his home was that it was too bad you had flamed my thread on AZ41. I have no idea on how you came up with that. I mostly felt bad for you, mixed with some bewilderment.

I'm boarding a flight shortly, c'ya.

momoese
08-28-2009, 02:14 PM
So to get back to the point of this thread.
The problem is one of confusion of terminology between agricultural and chemical disciplines.

I state that I grow all organically without the added addition of chemical or synthetic ferts or pesticides. You in your classic nit picking fashion reply that I am applying chemical, 2% to be exact. You know damn well that I do not apply anything other than "natural" organic materials in the classic sense of the word, in other words the agricultural common sense version of the word. I also choose not to use slurry or sewage. You know what I'm saying as does everyone else, but you seem to be the only person who has a problem with me saying I grow organically without knowingly adding any chemical or synthetic products. You choose to pick it apart using the chemical language that does not apply to the discussion just to support your agenda which is to further confuse people about, and discredit the word organic. I could care less about the word itself, come up with a word that better describes what I'm doing, legitimize the word so that other people know what it means and I'll use it. "Gardening" does not suffice, sorry but we all do that, only using different methods of caring for the soil and the plants.


Definitions of organic fertilizer on the Web:

organic: a fertilizer that is derived from animal or vegetable matter
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Naturally occurring organic fertilizers include manure, slurry, worm castings, peat, seaweed, sewage, and guano. Green manure crops are also grown to add nutrients to the soil. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_fertilizer

A fertilizer made of natural materials that undergoes little or no processing and includes plant, animal, and/or mineral materials.
Glossary of Garden and Botanical Terms (http://www.rainyside.com/resources/reference/terms.html)

fertilizers that do not contain any chemicals or synthetic compounds.
mygardenguide.com/index2.php

material of animal or plant origin containing one or more fertilizer nutrients, usually not all immediately available to plants (eg in the form of ...
citizenship.yara.com/en/resources/glossary/index.html

Fertilizer made from natural substances rather than chemicals. Examples of organic materials include compost (excellent!), alfalfa, blood meal, fish emulsion, manure, bone meal, and kelp.
glossary of rose terms at gardenmob.com, using color in the garden. (http://www.gardenmob.com/Glossary.htm)

means substances made up of one or more unprocessed material (s) of a biological nature (plant/animal) and may include unprocessed mineral ...
dacnet.nic.in/cfqcti/lst9.2defiterm.htm

Organic material such as animal manure, green manure, and compost, applied to cropland as a source of plant nutrients. ...
chs.tvusd.k12.ca.us/~kmcfadden/Chapter%2010%20Vocabulary%20List.doc

Bob
08-28-2009, 02:16 PM
That's it , no free milorganite samples for you!

Richard
08-28-2009, 02:18 PM
Your statement that I told Joe publicly nd "secretely" of your plans with Grow More is false.

Harvey, you told me in an email two months ago that you assumed I was developing a competitive product and had told Joe about it. Go dig for it in your outbox.

The problem is one of confusion of terminology between agricultural and chemical disciplines.

There is no dichotomy between "organic" fertilizers and "chemical" fertilizers. Instead, there is a lot of overlap.

MediaHound
08-29-2009, 02:54 PM
Everyone please take all the bickering in private.

OrganicBananac
10-06-2009, 06:05 PM
So,
Been bananas round 'dees parts, eh?:waving:

Richard
10-06-2009, 07:32 PM
just doing research for the Monthly Column (http://www.plantsthatproduce.com/column/). :D

momoese
10-07-2009, 12:05 AM
just doing research for the Monthly Column (http://www.plantsthatproduce.com/column/). :D

Ok. From your writings:

It is a contradiction to think that you are somehow living healthier by using beer to control slugs on your vegetables and herbs if you also drink beer -- not to mention wine or rum!


So if a person drinks beer and uses beer to control slugs from eating their lettuce etc, that's no worse than drinking beer and then spraying toxic pesticides on the produce and or soil to control slugs?

Secondly, what if the person is drinking organic wines and or beers and is using them to kill slugs and snails?

Thirdly, what about people who don't drink any beer or wine but choose to use them to kill slugs and snails?

Please answer all 3 questions separately but in one post.

PS, using wine to kill slugs is news to me. From what I have heard it's the yeast in the beer the slugs are attracted to.

harveyc
10-07-2009, 12:27 AM
:lurk:

Richard
10-07-2009, 01:05 AM
So if a person drinks beer and uses beer to control slugs from eating their lettuce etc, that's no worse than drinking beer and then spraying toxic pesticides on the produce and or soil to control slugs?

The word pesticide is defined by use, not by substance. If you drown a rat in water, then water is the toxic pesticide.

Secondly, what if the person is drinking organic wines and or beers and is using them to kill slugs and snails?

The production of wine and/or beer involves processes that are regarded as synthetic in relation to chemicals.

Thirdly, what about people who don't drink any beer or wine but choose to use them to kill slugs and snails?

The cost would be cheaper per application to use iron phosphate, which is also far more natural than beer or wine.

PS, using wine to kill slugs is news to me. From what I have heard it's the yeast in the beer the slugs are attracted to.

The point is that it is a contradiction to drink wine and yet complain about the processes and substances used in some pest control products.

Patty in Wisc
10-07-2009, 01:09 AM
I'm a little confused here too. Never heard of wine or rum attracting snails, but maybe it does!
quote: "Now some gardeners put beer out in trays or cans to attract and kill slugs at night."
My Dad told me he learned 40 - 50 yrs ago to put beer out in a shallow tray (not a can!) & the slugs crawl in & drown. I still do this, & it's nothing NEW.
Beer is not as expensive as buying the stuff you mentioned. You can use the leftovers -- stale beer left in cans or pitchers will do just fine!!
Just a note: pour all left over beer & soda on your plants or compost. They don't care if it's stale...they love the sugar!

OK, you posted just before I did. But, I'd like to know why beer & wine is not "natural".

Quote:
"It is a contradiction to think that you are somehow living healthier by using beer to control slugs on your vegetables and herbs if you also drink beer -- not to mention wine or rum!"
I'm not picking on you Richard, but this just doesn't make sense to me. Could you please explain? Thanks.

I posted this before I read what you wrote. I didn't know that iron phosphate is more "natural" than wine & beer. Is it really??!! I make wine. Is drinking it bad for me? YIKES

supermario
10-07-2009, 08:27 AM
While it is true that pesticide is defined as: "an agent used to destroy pests"..
I also feel your analogy is a little far fetched. You can't compare 'Raid' to Beer or Wine in terms of potential side effects to the environment and to yourself if one were to consume it. Granted, Raid is an extreme example.. but, that is why I feel the analogy of beer and pesticides is a little too generalized.

Not everyone drinks beer, but all life on this planet is dependant on water in one way or another. So, when you point out that water can be used as a pesticide.. I feel it proves my point that the analogy.. or more precisely, the definition.. is far too general.

I don't usually have a problem with slugs. If I see one where I don't want one, I pick it up and send it airborne into the next neighborhood.

harveyc
10-07-2009, 09:20 AM
LOL, Mario, but you better watch out. Somebody might report you to the cops for pest abuse or something. I don't think I've ever thrown a slug. I work outside a lot a night and am amazed at how many of them are crawling around "composting" dead plant material.

momoese
10-07-2009, 09:39 AM
Forgot to mention that pets getting into snail bait is very dangerous as well. I actually know someone who apparently didn't read the label and ended up with one very sick dog and a large vet bill.

Richard
10-07-2009, 10:07 AM
... I feel it proves my point that the analogy.. or more precisely, the definition.. is far too general.

It's not my definition. You'll have to take it up with the USDA, or in California with the Department of Pesticide Regulation.

Forgot to mention that pets getting into snail bait is very dangerous as well.

That would be true of Snail Bait containing Metaldehyde. The snail bait I mentioned is Sluggo, which is iron phosphate. It is safe for pets (mammals, rodents, and reptiles) and humans as well.

momoese
10-07-2009, 10:18 AM
Thanks but I'll continue using beer. At least the slugs can get a little happy time in the beer bath before dying, and as Patty said it's free! :)

Richard
10-07-2009, 10:38 AM
Thanks but I'll continue using beer. At least the slugs can get a little happy time in the beer bath before dying, and as Patty said it's free! :)

If it's leftover, then go for it! (Leftover beer is unheard-of around here.)

harveyc
10-07-2009, 11:21 AM
It's not my definition. You'll have to take it up with the USDA, or in California with the Department of Pesticide Regulation.

I'd like to see a reference to this, Richard, as I have never read it as general as you have written it.

For instance, the fertilizer UN-32 is a common liquid fertilizer used by farmers. Some orchardists will spray it in their tree rows a day before irrigation with the added benefit of killing weed pests fairly well (burn down, not systemic). It is not registered as a pesticide.

sbl
10-07-2009, 11:41 AM
I'm a little confused here too. Never heard of wine or rum attracting snails, but maybe it does!
quote: "Now some gardeners put beer out in trays or cans to attract and kill slugs at night."
My Dad told me he learned 40 - 50 yrs ago to put beer out in a shallow tray (not a can!) & the slugs crawl in & drown. I still do this, & it's nothing NEW.
Beer is not as expensive as buying the stuff you mentioned. You can use the leftovers -- stale beer left in cans or pitchers will do just fine!!
Just a note: pour all left over beer & soda on your plants or compost. They don't care if it's stale...they love the sugar!

OK, you posted just before I did. But, I'd like to know why beer & wine is not "natural".

Quote:
"It is a contradiction to think that you are somehow living healthier by using beer to control slugs on your vegetables and herbs if you also drink beer -- not to mention wine or rum!"
I'm not picking on you Richard, but this just doesn't make sense to me. Could you please explain? Thanks.

I posted this before I read what you wrote. I didn't know that iron phosphate is more "natural" than wine & beer. Is it really??!! I make wine. Is drinking it bad for me? YIKES

This is from EPA: Iron phosphate is ubiquitous in nature. It is a solid. It is not volatile and does not readily dissolve in water, which minimizes its dispersal beyond where it is applied. It is applied to soil as part of a pellet that also contains bait to attract snails and slugs. When the pests eat the pellets, the iron phosphate interferes with calcium metabolism in their gut, causing the snails and slugs to stop eating almost immediately. They die three to six days later.

Beer an wine are not ubiquitous in nature, but require synthesis from natural materials--much like chemical fertilizers. Nitrate, ammonia, can be synthesized from air (a natural material). Phosphate and potassium are common minerals in rocks and cannot be synthesized, but they can be processed from natural materials-- extracted and made more available for plants and provided in known concentrations.

supermario
10-07-2009, 01:43 PM
It's not my definition. You'll have to take it up with the USDA, or in California with the Department of Pesticide Regulation

Pluto had been considered a planet for over half a century. People felt the definition of a planet was too general, so they changed it to exclude Pluto and similar objects from planetary status.

I wouldn't go as far as to try and change the definition found in the Merriam Webster Online dictionary. I also wouldn't equate water with pesticides simply because it can be deemed appropriate according to the meaning of the word.

Richard, you posted a joke in the "dumb jokes" thread that with a little research, will lead you to the site of the "Flying Sphagetti Monster". Bobby Henderson used the same method to get his point across. The definition of intelligent design was too broad, so he used that to his advantage in order to make his point. -I find the whole thing hilarious by the way.. truly classic-In the end, it is considered satire.

supermario
10-07-2009, 02:13 PM
Stumbled upon this in another forum. It seems you can use an upside down melon rind too, but I would imagine that there would be more than just slugs attracted to that!

"With the melon rind, you can collect the melon rind (and overstuffed slugs) the next morning and dispose of them"

mckoinld
10-07-2009, 02:30 PM
Thanks for the info on the mellon. Have one that was on its way to the chicken yard. I will try that first maybe the chickens will get more than mellon tomorow.

Richard
10-07-2009, 02:38 PM
I'd like to see a reference to this, Richard, as I have never read it as general as you have written it.

Here's one of many, I think you own a copy? Pesticide Safety -- A Reference Manual for Private Applicators, 2nd Ed. (http://anrcatalog.ucdavis.edu/PesticideUseSafetyTraining/3383.aspx)

For instance, the fertilizer UN-32 is a common liquid fertilizer used by farmers. Some orchardists will spray it in their tree rows a day before irrigation with the added benefit of killing weed pests fairly well (burn down, not systemic). It is not registered as a pesticide.

Of course, it is illegal for a commercial farm to use any substance for a purpose which it is not labeled.

Supermario -- I believe I addressed your concerns in the article that started yesterdays discussion: Beer Is A Synthetic Pesticide (http://www.plantsthatproduce.com/column/PTP_2009_10_Beer.htm).

harveyc
10-07-2009, 03:03 PM
Here's one of many, I think you own a copy? Pesticide Safety -- A Reference Manual for Private Applicators, 2nd Ed. (http://anrcatalog.ucdavis.edu/PesticideUseSafetyTraining/3383.aspx)

Nope, don't own it and have never seen it even though I've had my private applicators permit for 15 years. Surely the USDA or DPR would have an online reference to the definition you're using, if it exists.

Of course, it is illegal for a commercial farm to use any substance for a purpose which it is not labeled.

It is not illegal to strip spray your orchard with UN-32. The fact that it kills weeds is a secondary consequence. You can also kill many pests, including weeds, by flooding open fields (another common practice). That also is not illegal.

Patty in Wisc
10-07-2009, 03:49 PM
My buddy Millet says he blasts mites & aphids w/ his water hose. Outside, that works better than spraying w/ dishsoap & hot water! I do it. So I guess my water & dishsoap are pesticides (?) :)
My GF lifted a board in her garden & there was a bunch of slugs under it. She sprinkled a little salt on them & they dissintegrated! Also, mix isopropyl alcohol w/ water & spray them in their eye & they melt. Sounds like fun things to do after a rain!!

supermario
10-07-2009, 04:00 PM
Supermario -- I believe I addressed your concerns in the article that started yesterdays discussion: Beer Is A Synthetic Pesticide (http://www.plantsthatproduce.com/column/PTP_2009_10_Beer.htm).

Not really. If I understand correctly, you are trying to debunk what people commonly believe about pesticides.. I just feel using a very broad definition of the word pesticide to make your point is confusing.

Here is an example from your writings to illustrate what I mean:
"It is a contradiction to think that you are somehow living healthier by using beer to control slugs on your vegetables and herbs if you also drink beer -- not to mention wine or rum!"

Why would the fact that you drink it or not make any difference? Studies show that alcohol consumed in moderation is actually good for you. So, one can make the argument that they are indeed living a healthier lifestyle by using beer as slug bait! :)

:nanadrink:

My GF lifted a board in her garden & there was a bunch of slugs under it. She sprinkled a little salt on them & they dissintegrated! Also, mix isopropyl alcohol w/ water & spray them in their eye & they melt. Sounds like fun things to do after a rain!!

LOL!! and I thought I was bad!!

damaclese
10-07-2009, 04:31 PM
I thought this thread had died a well deserved death but alas it has not.

Patty in Wisc
10-07-2009, 06:12 PM
The word pesticide is defined by use, not by substance. If you drown a rat in water, then water is the toxic pesticide.


Sorry, but I can't/won't believe that.
A friend of mine drowned. Is the lake he drowned in a toxic pesticide?
Should I say he got killed by a toxic pesticide...called water?

sbl
10-07-2009, 07:12 PM
To be serious here, I think Richard is mostly correct, the word "pesticide" means to kill pest, so anything that will kill pest is a pesticide. But, from a legal standpoint, EPA or USDA only look at the purpose a product is sold for--it's intended use based on the product label or advertising. Water, dishwashing soap, beer, and gasoline are all pesticides in that sense if they are used to kill bugs or pest, but they are not being sold for that purpose and therefore are not considered pesticides by EPA and USDA.

Patty in Wisc
10-07-2009, 07:32 PM
Good explanation SBL...thanks. Richard said "water is the TOXIC pesticide". In my dictionary it says " toxic --1. Of or pertaining to a toxin. 2. Harmful, destructive, or deadly; poisonous.

Richard
10-08-2009, 12:42 AM
Thanks everyone for your feedback on the article, I really appreciate it!

:bananas_b :woohoonaner: :bananas_b

sbl
10-08-2009, 10:23 AM
Actually, I just read your article and I agree for the most part--especially the misunderstanding of the difference between commercial fertilizers and organic fertilizer. Many forms of organic fertilizer actually have more salt (Sodium chloride--which is not good for plants) than most commercial fertilizers. There are even many here that have suggested using urine for fertilizer--if not diluted as suggested the salt in urine will kill plants (urine is also in manures).

All organic materials must be converted to the same chemicals that are found in commercial fertilizer to become available to the plants. In addition, many organic material are higher in pollutants than any commercial fertilizer--fish meal is often loaded with PCBs and DDT accumulated from the environment by fish through the process of bioaccumulation.

There are no petro chemical in any commercial fertilizer with the possible exception of slow release fertilizers--(I do not know what kind of polymers they use to coat the pellets). Natural gas is used in the Haber process to make ammonia--to consume the oxygen and create a reductive environment.

OrganicBananac
10-09-2009, 10:26 AM
The production of wine and/or beer involves processes that are regarded as synthetic in relation to chemicals.



This is false. It is the addition of Sulfites to wine, that makes it a "synthetic" beverage. (The reason why vegans won't consume it, even tho it is made from grapes) There are companies that DO NOT add sulfites, and their wines have no detectable traces of sulfites, which naturally in trace amounts can occur.

Im also missing the point of how water and grapes magically turn into synthetic chemicals??? Please explain.

OrganicBananac
10-09-2009, 10:40 AM
This is very interesting reading thru many of these topics.
It is blatantly obvious everything on this planet, comes from this planet.
There are things we should avoid and things we should seek out.
The reason why many people tho, choose to avoid synthetic, processed,non natural substances to garden with, is not because of the purity, or refinement or even availability... but 2 magic little words called.....INERT INGREDIENTS.

Heavy metals, ya know, arsenic,lead,mercury.... those are wonderful inert ingredients.
Luckily tho, we have laws, to protect us.
We are being protected well, by not knowing what or how much, of these "inert" ingredients are in your common synthetic fert.
Makes one get warm and fuzzy inside.

Good, now that big pink elephant is in the middle of the room. Carry on....

turtile
10-09-2009, 10:56 AM
This is very interesting reading thru many of these topics.
It is blatantly obvious everything on this planet, comes from this planet.
There are things we should avoid and things we should seek out.
The reason why many people tho, choose to avoid synthetic, processed,non natural substances to garden with, is not because of the purity, or refinement or even availability... but 2 magic little words called.....INERT INGREDIENTS.

Heavy metals, ya know, arsenic,lead,mercury.... those are wonderful inert ingredients.
Luckily tho, we have laws, to protect us.
We are being protected well, by not knowing what or how much, of these "inert" ingredients are in your common synthetic fert.
Makes one get warm and fuzzy inside.

Good, now that big pink elephant is in the middle of the room. Carry on....

Actually, we know the exact chemical ingredients in fully synthetic fertilizers. Mined fertilizers and manures which are all considered "organic" contain heavy metals and manures aren't regulated. Synthetic fertilizer is the purest fertilizer.

Richard
10-09-2009, 10:58 AM
Im also missing the point of how water and grapes magically turn into synthetic chemicals??? Please explain.

OrganicBananac, thanks for your feedback. I'm always interested in alternative perspectives.

In regard to wine, the magic word is "processes", not substances.

sbl
10-09-2009, 01:09 PM
This is very interesting reading thru many of these topics.
It is blatantly obvious everything on this planet, comes from this planet.
There are things we should avoid and things we should seek out.
The reason why many people tho, choose to avoid synthetic, processed,non natural substances to garden with, is not because of the purity, or refinement or even availability... but 2 magic little words called.....INERT INGREDIENTS.

Heavy metals, ya know, arsenic,lead,mercury.... those are wonderful inert ingredients.
Luckily tho, we have laws, to protect us.
We are being protected well, by not knowing what or how much, of these "inert" ingredients are in your common synthetic fert.
Makes one get warm and fuzzy inside.

Good, now that big pink elephant is in the middle of the room. Carry on....

Inert ingredients in commercial fertilizers are mainly the residue of the rock from which the minerals were extracted--in addition, if you want, you can usually find out the concentration of the heavy metals as they are required to measure them. Those same heavy metals plus some organic pollutants are also found in most organic materials--but in that case you do not know the concentration. Almost all fish now contain PCBs and DDT--concentrations are dependent on where they come from and where they are in the food chain. Methy Mercury is also common in fish and is much more toxic than the mineral forms usually found in rock.

Carry on...

supermario
10-09-2009, 01:36 PM
This is very interesting reading thru many of these topics.
It is blatantly obvious everything on this planet, comes from this planet.
There are things we should avoid and things we should seek out.
The reason why many people tho, choose to avoid synthetic, processed,non natural substances to garden with, is not because of the purity, or refinement or even availability... but 2 magic little words called.....INERT INGREDIENTS.

Heavy metals, ya know, arsenic,lead,mercury.... those are wonderful inert ingredients.
Luckily tho, we have laws, to protect us.
We are being protected well, by not knowing what or how much, of these "inert" ingredients are in your common synthetic fert.
Makes one get warm and fuzzy inside.

Good, now that big pink elephant is in the middle of the room. Carry on....

Your the best Matt! Never have I seen someone believe in something so strongly and be so horribly wrong... almost as bad as my ex-girlfriend actually believing there were a total of 5 continents!(true story!..believe it or not, that was the main proof for her argument that education in Colombia is better than in the U.S.A.!!) That is one of many reasons why I ended my relationship with that numbskull. No matter how good you look, your beliefs speak volumes about who you are!

supermario
10-09-2009, 01:41 PM
Inert ingredients in commercial fertilizers are mainly the residue of the rock from which the minerals were extracted--in addition, if you want, you can usually find out the concentration of the heavy metals as they are required to measure them. Those same heavy metals plus some organic pollutants are also found in most organic materials--but in that case you do not know the concentration. Almost all fish now contain PCBs and DDT--concentrations are dependent on where they come from and where they are in the food chain. Methy Mercury is also common in fish and is much more toxic than the mineral forms usually found in rock.

Carry on...

Off topic sbl, but do you know exactly what the negatives are associated with consuming mercury? I ask because I absolutely LOVE sushi... and obviously have heard about mercury concerns.. how safe or unsafe is it?? In what amounts?? ... I've easily eaten 2 pounds of raw fish in one sitting. Im at the point where I prefer raw salmon to cooked. Should I stop this practice??

--wanted to specify.. I don't buy raw salmon at the grocer and eat it... I just prefer the sushi variety to cooking it myself. Don't get me wrong..I've tasted several cooked salmon dishes that were amazing...salmon terriyaki comes to mind..

sbl
10-09-2009, 03:10 PM
Off topic sbl, but do you know exactly what the negatives are associated with consuming mercury? I ask because I absolutely LOVE sushi... and obviously have heard about mercury concerns.. how safe or unsafe is it?? In what amounts?? ... I've easily eaten 2 pounds of raw fish in one sitting. Im at the point where I prefer raw salmon to cooked. Should I stop this practice??

--wanted to specify.. I don't buy raw salmon at the grocer and eat it... I just prefer the sushi variety to cooking it myself. Don't get me wrong..I've tasted several cooked salmon dishes that were amazing...salmon terriyaki comes to mind..

Methyl Mercury is the primary concern in fish--it is a neurotoxin and can cause problems like cerebral palsy, blindness, deafness--the damages are irreversible. The first big example of it was in Minimata Japan. Cooking does not help, the only thing you can do is avoid the type of fish that are highest in mercury like sharks, king mackeral, swordfish and tilefish and limit the frequency of eating fish that are high in mercury. The risk are much higher for pregnant women and children. The recommended frequency of intake for fish like king mackeral is once a month.

Salmon is a good fish--I love it too. Wild caught salmon is suppose to be lower in mercury than farm raised salmon. Generally, the higher a fish is on the food chain, the higher it is likely to be in contaminants like mercury and PCBs--so if Talapia is good to you, you are eating at the bottom of the food chain.

supermario
10-09-2009, 03:42 PM
Methyl Mercury is the primary concern in fish--it is a neurotoxin and can cause problems like cerebral palsy, blindness, deafness--the damages are irreversible. The first big example of it was in Minimata Japan. Cooking does not help, the only thing you can do is avoid the type of fish that are highest in mercury like sharks, king mackeral, swordfish and tilefish and limit the frequency of eating fish that are high in mercury. The risk are much higher for pregnant women and children. The recommended frequency of intake for fish like king mackeral is once a month.

Salmon is a good fish--I love it too. Wild caught salmon is suppose to be lower in mercury than farm raised salmon. Generally, the higher a fish is on the food chain, the higher it is likely to be in contaminants like mercury and PCBs--so if Talapia is good to you, you are eating at the bottom of the food chain.

I have yet to try shark or any of the above mentioned fish. I have heard that shark has quite a tough texture. I'm definitely willing to try it once though.

Looks like I'll continue eating lots and lots of sushi! :)

Alright...back to the subject...

sbl
10-09-2009, 05:17 PM
Shark is firm--I wouldn't call it tough.It does need to be soaked in salty ice water to remove the urea (they do not have a bladder and excrete urea thru the skin).


I used to fish for sharks to eat--mostly small blacktips, but quit because of the mercury levels.

momoese
10-09-2009, 05:26 PM
Tuna is problematic too which is why we only buy Dave's Tuna. Here is some good mercury info.

Wild Caught Seafood | Canned Fish Nutrition | Mercury Safe Seafood (http://www.davesalbacore.com/health_and_nutrition.php)

OrganicBananac
10-10-2009, 01:24 AM
Yeah wine, like my koolaid. Water+sugar+purple. ;)

Anyone now care for some grape juice.

SBL,
I am not disagreeing with what you say, it is good information to know. The sad part is, by law, if heavy metals are added as "inert" ingredients, which they commonly are, legally this information does not have to be disclosed. Now lets all get points straight, there are companies with "pure" products. This is admirable, but like types of beer, may not be for everyone. Disclosure=good.

damaclese
10-10-2009, 09:42 AM
This is false. It is the addition of Sulfite's to wine, that makes it a "synthetic" beverage. (The reason why vegans won't consume it, even tho it is made from grapes) There are companies that DO NOT add sulfites, and their wines have no detectable traces of sulfites, which naturally in trace amounts can occur.

I'm also missing the point of how water and grapes magically turn into synthetic chemicals??? Please explain.

i am a chef. all wine has sulfides in it to some degree. it part of the natural chemical make up of grapes and the process of making alcohols.

for a wine to be labeled no sulfides it just has to not have any added. that doesn't mean there are not any in the first place. go to the USDA web site they have listed all the labeling requirements for wines

By the way many of the labels that are on foods like "Natural or Organic" do not mean what you would normally think they mean for a complete list of what can and cant be added to a product again go to the USDA food labeling requirements section i don't have the URL off the top of my head sorry
there are also many consumer advocacy web pages that list in clearer more simplified terms what can and cant be put in to your food by the way the USA food industry can pretty much put any thing in your food or allow any thing to be in your food it wants to as long as the label it properly for example there can even be Benzene in your food as long as its below a certain level and theirs no scientific evidence that benzene in any level is safe but your Government thinks there is we allow thousands of additives in are food the next highest alloable food additives i believe and don't quote me on this is Germany which allows under 40 additives

not to preach but its awfully hard to be a purist unless you want to live like a Monk in the dark ages cloistered away from the world so you are not contaminated by it get my point!

harveyc
10-10-2009, 10:01 AM
I don't know that sulfides naturally occur on wine grapes or not. I did take a class on wine-making about 30 years ago and don't remember much of what I learned. My understanding/perception was that most of the sulfites come from sulfur dusting (or spraying wettable sulfur powder) in the vineyards to reduce mold on the grapes. And then some wines will be made with grape juice that has had sulfur added to further kill any bacteria strains so that they can use strains that provide the desirable results they're looking for.

By the way, my college class was called Fermented Foods and was quite popular because of the beer and wine subject, but the professor would surprise students in some quarters and teach them about other foods instead, thereby decreasing demand for the class a little bit. My wife learned about making sauerkraut and such when she took the class the following year! :ha:

I wonder if Tog would be proud of the derailing of this thread.....

sbl
10-10-2009, 01:47 PM
Damaclese is right, sulfites are natural in wines--made by the yeast during the fermentation process. The amount in a finished wine (without any added) can vary significantly and be as high as 250 ppm in wine with no added sulfites. If you look at commercial labels, they do not say "no sulfites", they say "no added sulfites". The sulfite concentation most winemakers shoot for is about 50 ppm. Sulfite is necessary in wines to protect it from oxidation and prevent the growth of harmful bacteria.

check this link: Sulfites in Wine (http://waterhouse.ucdavis.edu/winecomp/so2.htm)

sbl
10-10-2009, 01:56 PM
Tuna is problematic too which is why we only buy Dave's Tuna. Here is some good mercury info.

Wild Caught Seafood | Canned Fish Nutrition | Mercury Safe Seafood (http://www.davesalbacore.com/health_and_nutrition.php)

I did not include tuna in the list of high mercury fish because it is not included in the list published by EPA, however, I have always believed that is a political decision, not a scientific decision--they are at the top of the food chain and are longer lived than most fish.

The link you provided is probably correct in suggesting that the mercury levels are lower in fish from colder water as the basic conversion of inorganic mercury to methyl mercury is done by bacteria in the sediment. It is always safer to eat smaller fish and lower on the food chain.

sbl
10-10-2009, 02:14 PM
Yeah wine, like my koolaid. Water+sugar+purple. ;)

Anyone now care for some grape juice.

SBL,
I am not disagreeing with what you say, it is good information to know. The sad part is, by law, if heavy metals are added as "inert" ingredients, which they commonly are, legally this information does not have to be disclosed. Now lets all get points straight, there are companies with "pure" products. This is admirable, but like types of beer, may not be for everyone. Disclosure=good.

I am not certain, but I believe that fertilizer companies are required to analyze the heavy metal concentrations in their fertilizer and if you want the information you can ask the company and they should provide it. There are limits to the amounts that can be found in fertilizers for sale. No company is going to add harmful contaminants to their products, but as I said things like heavy metals are "natural" contaminants in rocks--rocks that are used as the source of elements like potassium.

BTW, are you aware that all natural potassium is radioactive? People who live in brick or concrete structures get about twice as much background radiation because of the potassium in brick and concrete. Only isotopically purified and synthesized potassium is not radiocative--but nobody can afford that as a fertilizer. Essentially all natural phosphate rock is contaminated with uranium as well--enough to more than double the levels of background radiation on farmlands. Processing removes some of the contamination, but then I guess some people think that processing is bad.

Richard
10-10-2009, 04:18 PM
The metal content of fertilizers produced in California can be found here: Fertilizer Product Database (http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/egov/is/fert/)

The sad part is, by law, if heavy metals are added as "inert" ingredients, which they commonly are, legally this information does not have to be disclosed.

That's not true. All U.S. fertilizer manufacturers are required to provide a MSDS (Material Safety Data Sheet) for their product which includes a complete chemical analysis. You can usually find these online but in some cases might need to contact the manufacturer by shoe mail.

sbl
10-10-2009, 04:29 PM
Thanks Richard, I was fairly certain of my statement having contacted one manufacturer to find out the concentration of biuret in their urea--which they readily provided.

Richard
10-10-2009, 06:35 PM
Anyone now care for some grape juice.

All bottled or packaged juice sold at room temperature in the U.S. is pasteurized, a highly unnatural process. Some markets carry refrigerated un-pasterized juices. Mitchel has a lead on some unpasteurized pomegranate juice if you're interested.

momoese
10-10-2009, 06:41 PM
All bottled or packaged juice sold at room temperature in the U.S. is pasteurized, a highly unnatural process. Some markets carry refrigerated un-pasterized juices. Mitchel has a lead on some unpasteurized pomegranate juice if you're interested.

:ha:

sbl
10-10-2009, 07:47 PM
Pastuerizing is processing and it kills thing, so it must be bad!

supermario
10-10-2009, 07:50 PM
LOL!!

:lurk:

momoese
10-10-2009, 07:52 PM
Pastuerizing is processing and it kills thing, so it must be bad!

Processing an organically raised animal is not a bad thing at all. ;)

Richard
10-10-2009, 09:02 PM
Processing an organically raised animal is not a bad thing at all. ;)

with much humor intended, how about irradiating the meat of an organically raised animal? :D

sbl
10-10-2009, 09:26 PM
What is wrong with processing a natural mineral?

momoese
10-11-2009, 12:23 AM
with much humor intended, how about irradiating the meat of an organically raised animal? :D

That's an interesting topic.

A new thread maybe?

Richard
10-11-2009, 12:40 AM
That's an interesting topic.

A new thread maybe?

I don't know. Does "meat irradiation" fall into your terminology of "processing meat" ?

sbl
10-11-2009, 06:51 AM
Meat is not the only food irradiated. Lots of fruits and veggies are irradiated. It is a process that helps keep food longer and prevents disease, killing fungus and bacteria--uh-oh, another "process" and it also "kills" and it involves radioactive materials! It must be really bad!

Here is a good link on the subject:Food Irradiation (http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/food.htm)

supermario
10-11-2009, 08:51 AM
Meat is not the only food irradiated. Lots of fruits and veggies are irradiated. It is a process that helps keep food longer and prevents disease, killing fungus and bacteria--uh-oh, another "process" and it also "kills" and it involves radioactive materials! It must be really bad!

Here is a good link on the subject:Food Irradiation (http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/food.htm)

Very interesting. I did not know about this.

Richard
10-11-2009, 08:53 AM
But ... radiation is natural !

momoese
10-11-2009, 10:18 AM
The bigger question is does it give growers and processors an excuse to be slackers?

damaclese
10-11-2009, 11:10 AM
i don't want to harp on this point but as a chef i think about foods allot Naturally I'm my mind i often ponder what makes food good its not just the taste which from a chefs point of view is vary impotent but i also am intensely interested in its different qualities how fresh is it so I'm not to keen on irradiation as a preservative also i think about the various naturally accruing bacterias and fungi which we as Humans have a symbiotic relationship to for example people that don't eat beef for years then on the odd ocation they consume so and promptly get intense abdominal cramps bloating and some times will vomit most Vegatareans assume this is from the fact that beef is bad for you and I'm not here to say one way or the other on that point but the most likely culprit of this digestive upset is a lack of the symbiotic bacteria the we have in are gut to help us digest meat in general so whats the point of that simply put we need these their part of are good health and irradiation of any other process that kills indiscriminately the biotic we need to maintain are health is bad there are no amount of semantics that could in my mind disprove this point

Americans are spend millions of dollers a year on pro biotic dairy products to put these back in to there systems after they killed them off in the first place by eating foods that are toxic do to there preservatives and or processing
all say this i rarely if ever eat foods that I'm not intensely aware of were and how they were produced guess what guys and gals i almost never get sick iv had one cold in 12 years no one in my family possesses this kind of immunity so its probably not inherited i eat totally different then they do my diet in terms of preparation are more like an early 20cnt persons i cook plain and simple and i wash my hands like 40 times a day thats probably a big factor but all bet momoese hardly ever gets sick either well enough preaching i think you all get the point of were I'm going with this

PS on the down side if you dont like to cook thats bad as i do spend about 4 to 5 hr a day preparing my foods and baking or making butter or what ever but i do injoy this so its not a down side for me
hows that for thread recking and or bringing it back on to topic :-P

supermario
10-11-2009, 04:11 PM
The bigger question is does it give growers and processors an excuse to be slackers?

It seems common for workers in any industry, to do only what is required of them. The less regulation, the more slacking off. The only way to control that, is to hire more regulators...hence, more money being spent to feed us.

I have to admit that I feel a little weird about radiation in our food too, mostly because I'm sure the main reason it is done, is because it is cheaper than the alternatives. I honestly feel a little uneasy about the fact that a process regarding radiation that was approved in the 50's is still in use today. I would think scientific research would lead to at least a few changes in the process. Has there really been enough scientific testing to say that there will be no ill effects one or two generations down the line??

momoese
10-11-2009, 04:24 PM
Has there really been enough scientific testing to say that there will be no ill effects one or two generations down the line??

Not from what I've read.

supermario
10-11-2009, 04:33 PM
Not from what I've read.

Mitchel, you agreed with me on that, but you didn't address my response to your comment. Your method of monitoring farms for quality control would cost more money. Our economy is hurting as it is without having to worry about spending more on food preservation.

Im not agreeing with one extreme or the other.. I feel the answer is somewhere in the middle. :)

momoese
10-11-2009, 04:48 PM
i don't want to harp on this point but as a chef i think about foods allot Naturally I'm my mind i often ponder what makes food good its not just the taste which from a chefs point of view is vary impotent but i also am intensely interested in its different qualities how fresh is it so I'm not to keen on irradiation as a preservative also i think about the various naturally accruing bacterias and fungi which we as Humans have a symbiotic relationship to for example people that don't eat beef for years then on the odd ocation they consume so and promptly get intense abdominal cramps bloating and some times will vomit most Vegatareans assume this is from the fact that beef is bad for you and I'm not here to say one way or the other on that point but the most likely culprit of this digestive upset is a lack of the symbiotic bacteria the we have in are gut to help us digest meat in general so whats the point of that simply put we need these their part of are good health and irradiation of any other process that kills indiscriminately the biotic we need to maintain are health is bad there are no amount of semantics that could in my mind disprove this point

Americans are spend millions of dollers a year on pro biotic dairy products to put these back in to there systems after they killed them off in the first place by eating foods that are toxic do to there preservatives and or processing
all say this i rarely if ever eat foods that I'm not intensely aware of were and how they were produced guess what guys and gals i almost never get sick iv had one cold in 12 years no one in my family possesses this kind of immunity so its probably not inherited i eat totally different then they do my diet in terms of preparation are more like an early 20cnt persons i cook plain and simple and i wash my hands like 40 times a day thats probably a big factor but all bet momoese hardly ever gets sick either well enough preaching i think you all get the point of were I'm going with this

PS on the down side if you dont like to cook thats bad as i do spend about 4 to 5 hr a day preparing my foods and baking or making butter or what ever but i do injoy this so its not a down side for me
hows that for thread recking and or bringing it back on to topic :-P

Well I recently had the swine flu but in general I don't get sick too much. My wife works for a doctor so she's around a lot of sick people and the doctor has 3 young children and we all know what they bring home from school, and I'm not talking about homework! So yeah I guess I don't get sick too often, but I don't think my diet is anywhere near as discriminating as yours from the sound of it. I do enjoy eating at taco trucks, hamburger joints and other places that serve what I consider toxic food. I once knew an old man that was a diver cleaning the bottom of boats in Marina Del Rey which has some very toxic disgusting stagnant water with who knows what kind of crazy stuff in it. He told me that he never gets sick and his doctor told him he had the highest white cell count he'd ever seen. It's said that children should be allowed to play in dirt because it boosts their immunity. So what I'm trying to say it that here may be something to what your saying!

momoese
10-11-2009, 04:51 PM
Mitchel, you agreed with me on that, but you didn't address my response to your comment. Your method of monitoring farms for quality control would cost more money. Our economy is hurting as it is without having to worry about spending more on food preservation.

Im not agreeing with one extreme or the other.. I feel the answer is somewhere in the middle. :)

Sorry but I don't have an answer. As you stated it seems that by now we should either have proof that it either makes you sick or doesn't, or some newer technoligy.

BTW, how could I agree with a question that you asked? It was a question, not a statement. I'm just saying that from what I've read it doesn't appear that there is any long term studies that have been published proving the safety of this.

Richard
10-11-2009, 05:52 PM
The bigger question is does it [irridation] give growers and processors an excuse to be slackers?

I don't believe so. In some cases it is used in addition to present methods, in other cases it is used in situations where it is more effective than present methods. An example is the import of mangosteen fruits from Thailand. The fruit seeds can contain the embryos of exotic pests. Irridation is the only known non-destructive way to destroy the embryos in whole fruit. Consequently, whole mangosteen fruit must be irridated prior to entering the U.S.

As far as the concerns some people have about irridation, I'm not sure what their issues are. Certainly anyone who avoids irridated food should also avoid food cooked in a microwave oven.

Nicolas Naranja
10-11-2009, 07:22 PM
Just a thought,

I believe that the germophobia that america has is largely responsible for many of the outbreaks of foodborne illness that we see nowadays. As a child I played in the dirt and spent hours in the woods. I've drank milk that came right from the cow or goats udder (which the USDA says is pretty risky) and eaten fruits and vegetables right out of the garden(Most fruits and vegetables are treated with fungicides or washed in a chlorine solution before you get to eat them.) I rarely get sick. My wife on the other hand grew up with a nurse and led a fairly sanitized childhood and she gets sick quite often and has a host of allergies.

momoese
10-11-2009, 10:56 PM
I don't believe so. In some cases it is used in addition to present methods, in other cases it is used in situations where it is more effective than present methods. An example is the import of mangosteen fruits from Thailand. The fruit seeds can contain the embryos of exotic pests. Irridation is the only known non-destructive way to destroy the embryos in whole fruit. Consequently, whole mangosteen fruit must be irridated prior to entering the U.S.



You know, this could be used as an argument for eating only locally grown food.

Richard
10-11-2009, 11:34 PM
You know, this could be used as an argument for eating only locally grown food.

Sure, although keep in mind that a microwave oven bombards food with much more radiation than the process used to irradiate produce and meat.

momoese
10-11-2009, 11:56 PM
Sure, although keep in mind that a microwave oven bombards food with much more radiation than the process used to irradiate produce and meat.

I prefer to cook with fire, it makes me feel more macho.

Richard
10-12-2009, 12:13 AM
I prefer to cook with fire, it makes me feel more macho.

Yes, my neighbor barbeques almost every night of the year. They use the stove top for side dishes, but rarely is anything baked in the oven.

A microwave "cooks" food by irridating it with electromagnetic energy with a frequency near 10^11 Hz (100 GHz).

When you cook with radiant heat, you are irridating your food with electromagnetic energy with a frequency of about 10^14 Hz (100 THz).

I believe that produce and meats that are "sterilized" by irridation are exposed to electromagnetic energy with a frequency of about 10^20 Hz.

http://co2.utah.edu/jpgs/ElectromagneticSpectrum.jpg

momoese
10-12-2009, 12:25 AM
Does your neighbor BBQ, grill or gas grill? I'm a bit of a purist about BBQ/smoking.

Richard
10-12-2009, 12:27 AM
He irradiates with a propane flame source. :D

momoese
10-12-2009, 12:43 AM
He irridates with a propane flame source. :D

You're loosing me here. Your neighbor eats plated metal? Must be a Tough guy!

Patty in Wisc
10-12-2009, 01:06 AM
This is all very interesting. Which is better...propane or charcoal? I do charcoal because the flavor is better, & sometimes I put hickory or apple wood chips on for a little smoking.

momoese
10-12-2009, 01:10 AM
This is all very interesting. Which is better...propane or charcoal? I do charcoal because the flavor is better, & sometimes I put hickory or apple wood chips on for a little smoking.

Hardwood lump charcoal or briquette?

Patty in Wisc
10-12-2009, 01:24 AM
Uuuuuh, the Kingsford stuff(?) All it says is 'charcoal'. I think it's the long burning stuff.
Why do you ask me such tuff questions this late??!!!!

Patty in Wisc
10-12-2009, 01:32 AM
OK, OK, I guess it's briquetts. Also, I do not use lighter fluid to start them, I use 2 coffee cans stacked, & start them with paper underneath.
( Is this making sense? Do you know what I mean?)

damaclese
10-12-2009, 07:12 AM
I don't believe so. In some cases it is used in addition to present methods, in other cases it is used in situations where it is more effective than present methods. An example is the import of mangosteen fruits from Thailand. The fruit seeds can contain the embryos of exotic pests. Irridation is the only known non-destructive way to destroy the embryos in whole fruit. Consequently, whole mangosteen fruit must be irridated prior to entering the U.S.

As far as the concerns some people have about irridation, I'm not sure what their issues are. Certainly anyone who avoids irridated food should also avoid food cooked in a microwave oven.

dont ues a microwave oven have one don't ues it. it was given to me as a gift by a friend that didn't know i dont ues them. i exsepted it, as it was the polite thing to do.

supermario
10-12-2009, 07:37 AM
BTW, how could I agree with a question that you asked? It was a question, not a statement.

It was a rhetorical question.

I once knew an old man that was a diver cleaning the bottom of boats in Marina Del Rey which has some very toxic disgusting stagnant water with who knows what kind of crazy stuff in it. He told me that he never gets sick and his doctor told him he had the highest white cell count he'd ever seen. It's said that children should be allowed to play in dirt because it boosts their immunity. So what I'm trying to say it that here may be something to what your saying!

Yes! So many people try and keep their children in a bubble.. they don't realize they're doing more harm than good. As a child, I spent every waking hour outside. Today.. I rarely put on gloves when digging around in the dirt outside, I throw caution to the wind when it comes to trying foods, and I get in my car and crank the AC when I get out of the gym soaked in sweat. The only time I've ever missed work, or even school, was when I had the chicken pox as a kid!

dont ues a microwave oven have one don't ues it. it was given to me as a gift by a friend that didn't know i dont ues them. i exsepted it, as it was the polite thing to do.

My wife pokes fun at me because I don't even use it to warm things up! Im not a fan of TV dinners either, so I really don't have any use for it.

OK, OK, I guess it's briquetts. Also, I do not use lighter fluid to start them, I use 2 coffee cans stacked, & start them with paper underneath.
( Is this making sense? Do you know what I mean?)

I think I saw Alton Brown using the coffee can stack on a "Good Eats' episode.

I miss the good ol' days of real BBQ, but propane is so convenient.

Nicolas Naranja
10-12-2009, 07:59 AM
When I live in gainesville a hurricane knocked down an oak and my buddies and I turned it into firewood and ate food cooked in an open pit for about 6 months. It was a good six months because open pit fires = copius amounts of beer.

momoese
10-12-2009, 09:23 AM
OK, OK, I guess it's briquetts. Also, I do not use lighter fluid to start them, I use 2 coffee cans stacked, & start them with paper underneath.
( Is this making sense? Do you know what I mean?)

Yes, it's called a chimney. You can buy them already made though with a built in handle. I avoid using briquettes because they are full of nasty fillers. The lump charcoal is made from real wood and is available at most markets these days.

Richard
10-12-2009, 09:42 AM
He irradiates with a propane flame source. :D

You're loosing me here. Your neighbor eats plated metal? Must be a Tough guy!

Irradiate: a. To expose to radiation. b. To treat with radiation.

damaclese
10-12-2009, 09:45 AM
OK, OK, I guess it's briquettes. Also, I do not use lighter fluid to start them, I use 2 coffee cans stacked, & start them with paper underneath.
( Is this making sense? Do you know what I mean?) Home Depot or Low's Cowboy coal its 100 natural no fillers and its what i use as a substitute for Bio char this stuff has lots uses can be giving in a ground up form to absorb poisons in the stomach helps to absorb toxins in potted plants and makes a heck of a good stake on the Barby!

momoese
10-12-2009, 09:57 AM
Irradiate: a. To expose to radiation. b. To treat with radiation.

Richard, you can't go back and fix your typo then reply to me.

You originally said "irridate" which is a protective treatment for metal similar to yellow chromate used after zinc plating to protect the soft zinc.

http://paceperformance.com/images/products/manufacturer/Edelbrock/images/8036.jpg

Richard
10-12-2009, 03:37 PM
Richard, you can't go back and fix your typo then reply to me.

You originally said "irridate" which is a protective treatment for metal similar to yellow chromate used after zinc plating to protect the soft zinc.

Sorry, it was a midnight typo ... I'm glad you caught it. Now about my neighbors eating metal: a humorous thought!

sbl
10-12-2009, 08:42 PM
Been out for a couple days,--- but based on my knowledge of physics and radioactivity, the reason irradiation of food is considered safe, is because the energy of the gamma ray used in the irradiation cannot make the food radioactive. It can only cause the same kind of changes to the food that is caused by heat, denaturing some of the molecules.

The point momoese made is one of the biggest criticisms--the fact that it may be used to make up for other bad practices that could be avoided in the first place.

We are all being bombarded by gamma rays all the time--they are natural.

BTW--for those that do not know, microwave radiation heats food by passing a magnetic wave through the food--the water molecule is polar and bent--- as the wave passes through the food the water molecules flip back and forth causing friction that produces heat.

sbl
10-13-2009, 09:20 AM
This has been a useful thread—We have learned a lot—perhaps we should summarize and get down to the bottom line—what is good and what is bad.

Good things:
·Organic— carbon based materials containing unknown quantities of nutrients (and pollutants), void of chemical salts (ammonia, nitrate, phosphate and potassium all must be a salt before they can be taken up by plants).
·Natural—not synthesized by man, found in nature—things like pathogens, aflatoxin, botulin, ricin, heavy metals like lead and mercury.
·Unpasteurized—not processed or denatured, containing 100% natural products as they are found in nature.

Bad Things:
·Chemical salts—salts like those found in fertilizer, like ammonium nitrate, potassium nitrate, calcium phosphate, diammonium phosphate. The forms of nutrients required by plants for uptake.
·Commercial Fertilizers—fertilizers found in stores containing known quantities of chemical salts (and limited but known quantities of heavy metals).
·Processed—things that are extracted, irradiated, pasteurized, analyzed—like commercial fertilizer.
·Pasteurization—a process that kills natural things.
·Synthesized—made from something else by man using processes like fermentation to make beer and wine, nitrogen fixation (making ammonia from air).
·Irradiation—a process of killing pathogens and pest using gamma ray produced by radioactive waste products.
·Synthetic Pesticide—products that kill pest but are not natural and must be synthesized by man, like beer and wine or soapy water.

momoese
10-13-2009, 09:38 AM
And which list would wanna be comedians be added to?

Richard
10-13-2009, 10:28 AM
And which list would wanna be comedians be added to?

I don't know, but I think you missed the point that irradiated does not equate to radioactive.

momoese
10-13-2009, 10:40 AM
I don't know, but I think you missed the point that irradiated does not equate to radioactive.

How do you figure?

Richard
10-13-2009, 10:52 AM
All the phenomena in the top portion of this chart are radiation -- from AM radio waves through gamma rays. The heat you use to cook your meat is radiation.

http://co2.utah.edu/jpgs/ElectromagneticSpectrum.jpg

supermario
10-13-2009, 11:24 AM
BTW--for those that do not know, microwave radiation heats food by passing a magnetic wave through the food--the water molecule is polar and bent--- as the wave passes through the food the water molecules flip back and forth causing friction that produces heat.

Yes. I remember seeing that on a Good Eats episode(I love Alton Brown). That's why you can't brown a steak in the microwave.

I agree that this has been a useful thread(and I'm not being sarcastic). For one, I never knew that our food was irradiated in order to preserve freshness. I trust that there was a great deal of research before applying the technology in the first place, but I do worry about just how small the percentage for error is.

In the end, the almighty dollar has alot of say in what gets produced and what doesn't. Look at all the drugs that are approved and released, only to be recalled when people start dying. I'm not going to change my ways, but I don't feel 100% secure with the idea of food irradiation either. Perhaps if I was more educated on the subject, I would hit the 100% mark, but I don't see myself persuing a degree in physics anytime soon. Sorry. :)

It's amazing how technologically advanced we have come in just the last 100 years. The fact that it's been such a short amount of time relative to human existence leads me to believe that some of today's practices will probably be deemed unsafe in the future. Which practices is anyones guess.

Richard
10-13-2009, 12:15 PM
The main problem with the word "irradiation" is that reminds people of the word "radioactive". Those two things are very different.

sbl
10-13-2009, 12:23 PM
I agree that this has been a useful thread(and I'm not being sarcastic).

WHAT! Are you accusing me of being sarcastic? --GUILTY!

But seriously, I am just pointing out that many of the arguments used against the use of commercial fertilizers are just as ridiculous. They are synthetic, processed materials full of chemical salts. That is all very true--but that does not make them bad or harmful in any way if they are not misused. Many do contain salt (in this case I am talking about Na and Cl) and that as well as the nutrients themselves can kill plants when applied at high rates.

Many people do not realize we are radioactive-- we contain C14 and K40--both are radioactive materials. The C14 in us will be radioactive for about 30,000 yrs--the K40 for billions of yrs. I am not saying that radioactivity is not harmful, but like with fertilizer, the problems are dose related.

The old theory was that there was no dose of radioactivity that was safe--that just one radioactive particle in the right place could cause cancer, but more recently, science is beginning to believe that there is actually a less than normal rate of cancer in people exposed to some very low levels of radiation--slightly above background radiation.

As Richard has pointed out, light is radiation, if you shine a light on your food it has been irradiated--but that is just semantics. Electromagnetic radiation comes in a wide variety of frequencies and energies. Basic physics and chemistry tell us what energies it takes to cause changes in various components of our food from the individual atoms to the molecules. There are gamma rays that are energetic enough to transform elements--to make normally non-radioactive elements radioactive, but gamma ray with energies that high are not used for irradiating food (except by Mother Nature).

SuperMario, I do not disagree with you about questioning the motives of corporations and the extents they will go to to make a dollar. Individually, we cannot be knowledgable about everything and we have a tendency to avoid or fear those things we do not understand-- but sometimes that actually results in taking the path of higher risk.

momoese
10-13-2009, 12:35 PM
All the phenomena in the top portion of this chart are radiation -- from AM radio waves through gamma rays. The heat you use to cook your meat is radiation.

http://co2.utah.edu/jpgs/ElectromagneticSpectrum.jpg

I don't see fire on that diagram. Fire = radiation? I'm familiar with the term radiating heat, but from fire?

Edit, a simple search says yes. :) The sun for example. Well regardless, I prefer cooking with fire heating from the outside in.

supermario
10-13-2009, 12:50 PM
SuperMario, I do not disagree with you about questioning the motives of corporations and the extents they will go to to make a dollar. Individually, we cannot be knowledgable about everything and we have a tendency to avoid or fear those things we do not understand-- but sometimes that actually results in taking the path of higher risk.

I agree. Im sure there is more risk in consuming wild deer than there is with picking up a few pounds of meat at the grocery store.

Thanks for all the information and different points of views guys/gals!

:woohoonaner:

Thought I'd add this tidbit from the wikipedia page to stur things up again.. :)

Other countries, including New Zealand, Australia, Thailand, India, and Mexico, have permitted the irradiation of fresh fruits for fruit fly quarantine purposes, amongst others. Such countries as Pakistan and Brazil have adopted the Codex Alimentarius Standard on Irradiated Food without any reservation or restriction: i.e., any food may be irradiated to any dose.

Wikipedia page: Food irradiation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_irradiation)

Richard
10-13-2009, 01:04 PM
Irradiated food imported into the U.S. must come from an inspected facility. It takes 18 months to get a site approved, from 1st inspection to certification. As for dosage: larger dosage means higher energy (electricity) costs.

The devices used for food irradiation look very similar to the conveyor-belt machines used to inspect passenger carry-on bags at airports. The main difference is the cathodes emit a higher frequency.

sbl
10-13-2009, 01:40 PM
Here is a little information on Gamma Rays:
Gamma-rays (http://science.hq.nasa.gov/kids/imagers/ems/gamma.html)

As it mentioned in the Wikipedia article there are several different methods (sources) used for irradiation of food--some from a radioactive source, some from a machine like an X-ray.

As for the transformations that this ionizing radiation can cause, it can break covalent bonds or knock electrons out of their orbits (thereby ionizing). It can disrupt the DNA and in case of seeds cause mutations. Such irradiation has been used to cause mutations in seeds on purpose--as was the case in the development of some seedless citrus like Star Ruby and Ruby Red grapefruit.

The kind of transformations that we want to avoid are nuclear transformation--changing the structure of the nucleus of an atom--the kinds that change an element from a non-radioactive element into a radioactive element. There are gamma ray energies that can do that as in the transformation of N14 (the normal form of N) into C14 (the radioactive form of carbon). This transformation is done daily by Mother Nature in our atmosphere.

sbl
10-13-2009, 05:21 PM
Just for the heck of it, if anyone cares to respond--if you could choose between having your food irradiated by an X-ray type machine (using a cathode ray tube) or having it irradiated by a radioactive material emitting Gamma rays (like Cobalt 60)---Which would you choose?

supermario
10-13-2009, 07:03 PM
Just for the heck of it, if anyone cares to respond--if you could choose between having your food irradiated by an X-ray type machine (using a cathode ray tube) or having it irradiated by a radioactive material emitting Gamma rays (like Cobalt 60)---Which would you choose?

Sbl, I don't think there are too many of us qualified enough to make an educated guess.. especially since I haven't read through the information you posted about gamma rays yet.. :P

I would assume you want us to guess X-ray since it does not have the word radioactive in it, but I'm betting it's actually more dangerous.

Irradiated food imported into the U.S. must come from an inspected facility. It takes 18 months to get a site approved, from 1st inspection to certification. As for dosage: larger dosage means higher energy (electricity) costs.

Right. Somewhere in the wikipedia info that I posted, it states the maximum dosage allowed in the U.S.A. It does not seem like something that is loosely regulated.

sbl
10-13-2009, 07:19 PM
Right. My guess is most people would choose X-ray since they are more familiar with it--and more afraid of anything radioactive. In reality, I'm just guessing here as to any hazard, but the radioactive material puts out a very defined radiation and cannot change it's energy levels. As with any equipment, X-ray equipment can fail--it can be subject to power fluctulations, tuning errors, maintenance problems--so just my guess, but given that they are using very similar energy radiation to begin with, I would consider the radioactive material to be safer.

Again, just an example of making a choice based on fear without really knowing.

damaclese
10-14-2009, 07:53 AM
I don't know, but I think you missed the point that irradiated does not equate to radioactive. Richard i know your comment was not addresed to me but i didnt miss the point ether all reidarat it just quickly for you i dont like it not becaus i think thers a danger of radoactivity trancfering to my food but because it stopes biological activitys and kills indascrimantly "no good bactrea"

PS im on a lap top my conputer has a hard drive problim so no spell check sorry please strugal with me for a few days and if you cant i understand thanks Paulo

Richard
10-14-2009, 09:17 AM
... i think thers a danger of radoactivity trancfering to my food ...

No. There is no possibility of that. The food is sent down a conveyer-belt tunnel. On the outside of the tunnel there are gamma ray sources. The gamma rays easily pass through the tunnel walls but the source itself has no contact with the food. In the U.S. the cathodes are either high-voltage transmitters or cobalt-60 bars. In poorer countries it is rare to find the expensive aluminum-cobalt alloy bars unless a major U.S. or European food distributor is involved.

mckoinld
10-14-2009, 10:44 AM
I would prefer Source radiation to X-ray. As Sbl said it is more reliable. Cobalt -60 has a long half life and emits consistently.

damaclese
10-14-2009, 11:24 AM
No. There is no possibility of that. The food is sent down a conveyer-belt tunnel. On the outside of the tunnel there are gamma ray sources. The gamma rays easily pass through the tunnel walls but the source itself has no contact with the food. In the U.S. the cathodes are either high-voltage transmitters or cobalt-60 bars. In poorer countries it is rare to find the expensive aluminum-cobalt alloy bars unless a major U.S. or European food distributor is involved.

you misunderstod me i don't think it can contaminat my food

to me the problim is that it kills biological activity all together. there are many health benafits to consuming food that is raw and has all the normal enzime ativaty many of which are produced by live bactirea workin in the raw foods. im so sorry that my Dislexsea is interfaring in my being clear.

supermario
10-14-2009, 11:56 AM
you misunderstod me i don't think it can contaminat my food

to me the problim is that it kills biological activity all together. there are many health benafits to consuming food that is raw and has all the normal enzime ativaty many of which are produced by live bactirea workin in the raw foods. im so sorry that my Dislexsea is interfaring in my being clear.

Good point damaclese.. and don't be so hard on yourself! :)

That leads to the question.. are sushi items(fish, octopus, eel, etc) irradiated?...what about seafood in general?
I always thought most seafood was preserved on the ship, then packaged and sold once they reached the harbor..

Richard
10-14-2009, 06:02 PM
Good point damaclese.. and don't be so hard on yourself! :)

That leads to the question.. are sushi items(fish, octopus, eel, etc) irradiated?...what about seafood in general?
I always thought most seafood was preserved on the ship, then packaged and sold once they reached the harbor..

Sushi sold in California has been flash-frozen, then thawed for sale.

Raw animal flesh is an ideal host for any bacteria that may be floating around. Several years ago my wife had a child home-care business and so we had TB tests every six months. One of mine came up positive. I took specific antibiotics for 9 months and endured blood tests every two weeks to insure that the antibiotics weren't causing any damage to my blood system. The health department traced the source back to sushi I had eaten at a 5 star hotel in Anahiem while at a supercomputing conference. Apparently one of the restaurant employees was infected with TB and the hotel had only been able to notify persons they could trace. I had paid with cash, not credit card.

sbl
10-14-2009, 06:20 PM
We had a seminar at work by employees of the FDA shellfish lab--the title was "If you knew Sushi, like I know Sushi.." The seminar stopped me from eating raw oysters (well--most of the time). I have never been a Sushi fan, but that was an eye opener--mainly for the worm that can be found in Sushi--Anastiasis I think. However, fish that has been blast frozen to -20 will kill the worm, so if I ever ate Sushi, I would want to know that it had been frozen to -20.

Damaclese, I understand what you are saying and the bacteria would be killed as you say, however, there are many foods that contain beneficial bacteria and bacteria are everywhere, so we will never get away from them. As for food value like enzymes and vitamines, the % of those that is destroyed is minimal and many of these would be destroyed by cooking. Freshness is probably just as important (if not more) and that is one of the criticisms--you cannot tell how old the food is since it does not go bad as quickly

Richard
10-14-2009, 06:30 PM
Not to worry, frozen CO2 hangs out at -60 C.

mckoinld
10-14-2009, 11:48 PM
Not being able to tell how fresh something is .....
As Sbl said that is the bad thing, but at the same time it is the good thing. It allows "fresh" food to get to many more people and be more affordable.

to side track...Raw Oysters...Not..But flash fried about 1 min!!!!YES!!!
Sbl do you get to Jerrys to eat oysters. I go there every time I am in Pensacola. Thier Oysters fried in corn meal are some of the best I have ever had.

sbl
10-15-2009, 06:37 AM
I used to go to Jerry's almost every week (when I played softball), I don't go as often anymore, but fried mullet is what I usually have there. I do like fried oysters and oyster po-boys.

Raw oysters and sushi are good example of things that are natural, and when they are unprocessed they can be dangerous. I know of several people that have died from raw oysters (vibrio vulnificus). There are at least half a dozen bad things you can get from raw oysters like cholera, hepatitis.

We also had a seminar about a process use to purify live oysters that someone was trying to get started in the US (it is used in Australia)--it holds oysters in recirculating water that is ozonated for 2-3 days, but I don't think it ever got started here.