- This topic has 1 reply, 10 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
all of us who are “organic” and have been before it was a trend, understand with full knowledge that we are getting other organic things in those expensive fruits, vegetables, chicken, and meat. but what we don’t want is food that has been doused with pesticides, herbicides, toxic sludge, and grown in soil that has been completely depleted of any nutrients and biota. and in the last 4 years there have been several studies that compared organic food to conventionally grown food and the organic food was found to have a higher nutrient content, which would certainly make sense if it wasn’t grown in soil devoid of any nutrients. i work for a 200 acre organic/biodynamic farm. these are topics that we discuss all the time, and we also keep up on the latest studies worldwide that support the value of what we do.
Typical leftist thinking: “I know what’s best for you so I will make your decisions for you”.
So how is it OK for a government to decide to put flouride in my drinking water? Isn’t what you are advocating the height of paternalism?
OK, time for confession:
In 1969 I went though USMC boot camp at Parris Island, SC. In 11 weeks, I lost 66 pounds, and I watched pounds of salt go into everything that came out of the mess kitchen except maybe the cereal, milk and ice cream that I survived on. Sure the physical training (PT) and exercise that I endured had the biggest impact on my weight loss, but I decided at that time that the mess kitchen was including enough salt in my diet that I really didn’t need any more. Since the day I left Parris Island, haven’t touched a salt shaker except to pass it someone else upon request at the dinner table.
I am still convinced that anyone who cooks for me, my bride of 42 years or the chef that cooks for me in the white table cloth restaurant, or the cook in the beach bar – they all use enough salt to satisfy my needs.
This discussion has been very enlightening to me. I never knew there were so many kinds and colors of salt. I’m too “ingrained” in my ways to change now at such an advanced age, but I certainly do appreciate and admire those that know so much about salt, the different types, the benefits of each and the dangers of each.
Now flouride, flourine or whatever. I buy my water from the local Asada. I don’t know if it has fouride, florine, flour or arsenic it it, it taste great to me. Before I moved here, I bought it from the city of Houston, the city of Austin, and the cities of St. Petersburg, Clearwater and Tampa. As far as I am concerned, I am still vertical and taking nourishment, so being that their water got cold enough to make good clear ice for my cocktails, that was all I could ask for.
I have lived long enough to enjoy my professional and social lives, 4+ great years in Costa Rica, my wonderful wife, 2 kids and 6 grand kids that visit for 6 weeks each summer, and a coterie of wonderful friends here in Samara.
In short, I think a lot of you people get too stressed out about what you eat and the water you drink. Relax, your days are numbered and you can’t change that!
On this forum, someone once suggested that I worked for or took money from Monsanto to support GMOs; that I had a financial bias. I do not/did not. It is nice to know (although other must have known before this) that Maravilla does, in fact, have a financial bias; she works for an organic farm and promotes organic foods. But chances are that M ate organically before choosing her employment, so lets not hold that against her.
i was organic (since the 70’s) before i ever went to work for the farm. when i worked as a journalist i wrote articles about these issues, and in fact, they hired me BECAUSE of my lifestyle, and i don’t have to push what they do — they are a beacon in the darkness of conventional farming and have worldwide recognition for their practices. hold it against me??? why would you hold that against me? sheesh. I also belong to the Slow Food movement. you probably don’t know what that is, but you would likely hold THAT against me, too. start thinking outside the box, Victoria. that is NOT why i do what i do — i’m old enough to have seen the changes in eating habits — from real food to food-like products, and No, i am never going to eat something that is NOT real food. i don’t want my food chemicalized, processed, or bastardized in any way. if you look at society, most of the illnesses that are bankrupting the healthcare systems AROUND THE WORLD are a result of what people eat. so if you think it isn’t important, think again. and that is why i don’t want chemicals in my water — fluoride is one of the most toxics things on the planet but you’re telling me that it’s good for me based on some pap from the NIH, when there are plenty of other studies to contradict that info, and people who are now finding out how awful this stuff is are demanding that their water suppliers STOP putting it in their water. nobody has a fluoride deficiency. it’s like saying, if you just put a little bit of arsenic in your water, it won’t hurt you. well, if fluoride is so safe, why does it have a warning on toothpaste to call the damn poison control center if you swallowed it?? you can eat whatever you want, drink all the fluoridated water you want, just please do not try to tell me that i should do it and that it is good for me. that completely defies any logic or critical thinking.
Never suggested someone should eat as I do – however that is. And note that I did grant that you had probably chosen organics before you chose to work at the farm.
As to the toothpaste, fluoride – beneficial in 1ppm – is toxic in large quantities. For that I refer you to your Harvard study.
Less reaction, more thought please. I don’t tell you what is good for you in the way you suggest, although the government does (do you use your seat belt?). I do try to point out the science.
of course, i wear my seatbelt, and i did it before it was a law. to not do it flies in the face of what we know about accident survival.
as for science, yeah right. science was hijacked years ago — all science can be bought, any outcome you want can be achieved if you have enough influence and money. and following the money is always the key to understanding the conclusions that science draws.
fluoride is good for you, is safe? please, spare me such ridiculous thinking. there is plenty of evidence to suggest that if wreaks havoc in a variety of ways if it’s ingested.
you can have my share. and might i suggest that if you want to understand how science isn’t valid anymore read either Marcia Angell’s book The Truth About The Drug Companies or her other book Science on Trial.
But the best one is The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship by Phil and Paul Collins. your steadfast beliefs that science is everything won’t be the same afterwards.
[quote=”maravilla”]dang, David! this is the second time we’re agreed on something. i agree wholeheartedly with Bloomie’s practice of taxing the crap out of cigarettes (they are $13.00 a pack in Manhattan) and regulating how much soda a person can drink in one sitting. obviously there is a serious problem about lack of common sense or even control over what some people will consume. these bad choices put a burden on everyone and one society as a whole. if they aren’t smart enough to not drink 64 oz of Coke with a pseudo-beef hamburger, then yes, someone should make that choice for them. (i’m ducking now!)[/quote]
Oh jolly new year. I suppose you think the police are there to protect you too. LOL.This seems to be the de facto thread to expound on dietary opinions, and since there has been comment on the desirability or organic/nonorganic ag products, I thought I’d throw this in about pesticides. It just appeared in
the professional journal ‘Environmental Research’ (volume 120, pages 96-101, January 2013). One of the authors is C. Wesseling, from UNA in Heredia, and if you’re interested enough, you can try to contact this person for more details. The title of the research article is:
“Occupational pesticide exposure and screening tests for neurodegenerative disease among an elderly population in Costa Rica”.
Here is the summary (abstract)of the article:
Background. Pesticides have been associated with Parkinson’s disease (PD) in many studies, and with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) in a few.
Methods. We conducted screening tests for neurologic disease and occupational pesticide use in a population-based sample of 400 elderly subjects at two government-run clinics in Costa Rica; 361 subjects who failed the initial screen were given both the Mini-mental States Exam (MMSE) and a modified version of a 10-item United Parkinson’s Disease Rating Motor Subscale (UPDRS). Among subjects who failed either test, 144 were then examined by a neurologist.
Results. Past occupational pesticide exposure was reported by 18% of subjects. Exposed subjects performed worse on the MMSE than the non-exposed (mean 24.5 versus 25.9, p=0.01, adjusted for age, sex, and education). The exposed had significantly elevated risks of abnormal scores on two UPDRS items, tremor-at-rest (OR 2.58, 1.28–5.23), and finger-tapping (OR=2.94, 95% CI 1.03–8.41). Thirty-three (23%) of those examined by the neurologist were diagnosed with possible/probable PD, 3–4 times the expected based on international data; 85% of these cases had not been previously diagnosed. Among subjects who took the UPDRS, the exposed had an increased risk of PD (OR=2.57, 95% CI 0.91–7.26). No excess risk was found for a diagnosis of AD or mild cognitive impairment.
Conclusions. Elderly subjects with past occupational pesticide exposure performed significantly worse on screening tests for dementia and PD, and had an increased risk of an eventual PD diagnosis. Screening may be particularly appropriate among elderly subjects with past pesticide exposure.
________________________________________
Highlights. We screened 400 elderly subjects for neurologic disease and pesticide exposure in Costa Rica in 2 government clinics. ? Those with self-reported past occupational pesticide exposure performed significantly worse on cognitive and motor tests. ? Those reporting past occupational pesticide exposure had an odds ratio of 2.57 (0.91–7.26) for Parkinson’s disease. ? Prevalence of Parkinson’s disease was 3–4 times the expected in this population. ? Screening for neurologic disease may be particularly appropriate for those with past pesticide exposure.FWIW
PEH[quote=”pharg”]This seems to be the de facto thread to expound on dietary opinions, and since there has been comment on the desirability or organic/nonorganic ag products, I thought I’d throw this in about pesticides. It just appeared in
the professional journal ‘Environmental Research’ (volume 120, pages 96-101, January 2013). One of the authors is C. Wesseling, from UNA in Heredia, and if you’re interested enough, you can try to contact this person for more details. The title of the research article is:
“Occupational pesticide exposure and screening tests for neurodegenerative disease among an elderly population in Costa Rica”.A number of questions come to mind immediately. These are “elderly subjects”. When did they spray? What did they spray? What was the concentration of the substances sprayed? What was their exposure (did they wear protective clothing and masks, did they spray on a daily basis, etc.)? Until all those questions are answered, there is no way to even begin to suggest that this study has validity.
[quote=”VictoriaLST”][quote=”pharg”]
A number of questions come to mind immediately. These are “elderly subjects”. When did they spray? What did they spray? What was the concentration of the substances sprayed? What was their exposure (did they wear protective clothing and masks, did they spray on a daily basis, etc.)? Until all those questions are answered, there is no way to even begin to suggest that this study has validity.[/quote]My, my, you are quick to dismiss the validity of this research because your questions are not answered. Are you assuming the victims are capable of answering any of your questions? I suggest you might talk it over with Catharina Wesseling at UNA before dismissing her multidecadal research. The publication appears to be another brick in the wall since, as Maravilla indicates, the topic has been generally known, since before Rachel Carson.
Meanwhile, another more technical analysis has appeared in the Proceedings on the National Academy of Sciences, summarized as:New Connection Links Parkinson’s Disease with Pesticide Exposure
Scientific evidence already has connected pesticide exposure with an increased risk of Parkinson’s disease. Chemicals like paraquat, maneb, and ziram, commonly found in pesticides have been found in farmworkers and others living and working near the fields, and are tied to an increase in the disease. New research has identified another chemical from pesticides, benomyl, that is linked to Parkinson’s. The toxic effects of benomyl are still found in the environment, even 10 years after the chemical was banned by the EPA. This chemical triggers a series of cellular events leading to Parkinson’s.
Parkinson’s is a degenerative disorder of the central nervous system. The most obvious symptoms are involuntary shaking, rigidity, slower movement, and difficulty walking or walking with a gait. As it advances, it can lead to dementia, sensory, sleep, and emotional problems. Famous individuals who suffer from the disease include actor Michael J. Fox and boxer Muhammad Ali.
Benomyl exposure begins the process of Parkinson’s by blocking the enzyme called ALDH, which is an enzyme responsible for preventing a toxin called DOPAL from accumulating in the brain. If the enzyme is blocked, DOPAL in the brain will eventually damage neurons and increase the risk of the disease.
For three decades, benomyl was used widely in pesticides in the USA. Evidence began to arise identifying its toxic effects including tumors, brain malfunction, carcinogenesis, and reproductive disorders. Benomyl was banned in 2001.
The new research conducted at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) made the connection between benomyl and Parkinson’s. Most importantly, they identified the target enzyme, ALDH. This enzyme can be the focus of future research. If there is a way to prevent ALDH from being blocked by bodily contaminants, then the DOPAL could never build up and damage the nervous system.
“We’ve known that in animal models and cell cultures, agricultural pesticides trigger a neurodegenerative process that leads to Parkinson’s,” said Bronstein, who directs the UCLA Movement Disorders Program. “And epidemiologic studies have consistently shown the disease occurs at high rates among farmers and in rural populations. Our work reinforces the hypothesis that pesticides may be partially responsible, and the discovery of this new pathway may be a new avenue for developing therapeutic drugs.”
The study has been published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of SciencesI am not a pesticide chemist, nor do I play on on TV.:P
I am not dismissing the research, in fact I agree that an overdose of pesticides/constant uncontrolled exposure to pesticides causes problems. I just want the parameters of exposure. How long, how much, etc. Those answers are important to the conclusions.
these chemicals affect everyone differently. what might be too much for one person might be tolerated by someone else, and the research usually isn’t referring to what you call an overdose. the bottom line is that they are harmful to the environment, to humans and animals, and they destroy the soil. why don’t you be the lab rat, and consume some Round-Up every day for a year and then report back to us?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
