| Author | Content |
Trish
Jacksonville, TX
(Zone 8b)
 April 7, 2007
10:07 AM Post #3365602
| Reason #25671 that "self-sufficiency is the goal: in our house...
[HYPERLINK@www.cnn.com] |
garden_mermaid
Sunnyvale, CA
(Zone 9b)
April 7, 2007
8:43 PM Post #3367511
| That goes along with the Almond Board's plan to pass off "pasteurized" almonds as raw almonds. I may choose to buy a bag of pasteurized almonds for some recipes, but when I want raw almonds, I want them to be truly raw!
[HYPERLINK@www.newstarget.com]
[HYPERLINK@www.almondboard.com] |
Rocco
Tulsa, OK
(Zone 7a)
April 8, 2007
5:19 AM Post #3367933
| Pasteurized may be a misnomer for irradiated food but irradiating food does not contaminate it. It is probably one of the best tecniques that can be used to prevent the spread of food borne diseases. Radioactive particles,rays, pass through radiated material and leave no residue or radioactivity. This is a fact that cannot be disputed. |
Dyson
Rocky Mount, VA
(Zone 7a)
April 8, 2007
5:48 AM Post #3368017
| Trish - what is Reason #25670. etc?
I agree on trying to establish a truly self sufficient household for the reasons mentioned and the fact that in the world as it is now I personally feel like cattle - forced to work the job provided and consuming the available products on the market shelf. Sad to say the least, If I said more... I'd probably lose access to this great site. |
spot8907
Ida, MI
April 8, 2007
7:03 AM Post #3368248
| Well personally given the choice between food born disease and irradiation, I'll take my chances with the food born diseases thank you very much. Just ;like everything else that man trots out as the best thing since sliced bread there is going to be problems down the road. The sad state of human health today despite all the "advances' in modern medicine should be enough to warrant caution at the very least. So Rocco, you go ahead and eat irradiated food, let me know how you are doing in say 20 years, maybe I will change my mind then. LOL |
Rocco
Tulsa, OK
(Zone 7a)
April 8, 2007
7:25 AM Post #3368325
| Spot
I spent my career working with radioactive materials,thirty years. I was involved with the isotopes cobalt 60,cesium 137 and also radium. I am still here and all of my associates are still alive. If you have no technical background to comment on this subject,don't try to put me down! |
spot8907
Ida, MI
April 8, 2007
8:00 AM Post #3368428
| I'm sorry Rocco, I didn't mean to put you down. What I'm trying to say is that every time man comes out with something supposed to be harmless long term effects often prove otherwise. Consider abspetos for example. While you were working with these substances were you eating food treated with them? While you may feel comfortable with this I do not. I choose to take a wait and see attitude. Call me backward or uneducated etc. but IMHO caution is called for when dealing with things of this nature. Like I said if 20 years from now there is no controversy and this thing proves to be as harmless as they say I may change my mind, but untill then I err on the side of caution. |
Rocco
Tulsa, OK
(Zone 7a)
April 8, 2007
8:23 AM Post #3368488
| Spot
I accept your explanation. We must all also accept the fact that science has to keep moving forward. Some mistakes will be made along the way but progress will be the result of scientific exploration.
Happy Easter |
Indy
Alexandria, IN
(Zone 5b)
April 8, 2007
8:45 AM Post #3368547
| Science has made life easier in many ways. Still, solving problem A has often brought problems B & C to work on as a result.
Now mankind has an[a] H-bomb[s]. What is he going to do with that???? The bomb may have helped keep the peace at one time...now what? |
Dyson
Rocky Mount, VA
(Zone 7a)
April 8, 2007
8:48 AM Post #3368561
| I also work w/ radioactive materials (to the point that I am required to wear a dosimeter at work).
The dosimeter is replaced and analyzed every three months. At this point in time I do not know what my employer would do if the dosimeter showed an indication of over-exposure.
Guess I'll figure it out when stuff starts falling off? |
Trish
Jacksonville, TX
(Zone 8b)
April 8, 2007
10:34 AM Post #3368855
| Dyson,
As for my other reasons...well, I have to follow the DG rules too *grin*
Let's just say that for many many reasons, we don't fit -and/or we don't care for- the "status quo".
trish |
Dyson
Rocky Mount, VA
(Zone 7a)
April 8, 2007
11:51 AM Post #3369039
| trish, - Thank you for your reply, it is nice too know that when when you post something, it is actually read. And you are right that there are Many, Many reasons to try and be self - -sufficient.
A restaurant I go to has a sign that says "trust the government - sure just ask an Indian".
Actually, when I was in Alaska, the Klinkit (sp?) tribe made me envious of their there life.
So the point after all this rambling - is Thanks |
victorgardener
Lower Hudson Valley, NY
(Zone 6b)
April 10, 2007
3:34 PM Post #3377006
| People always fear what they don't understand. |
garden_mermaid
Sunnyvale, CA
(Zone 9b)
April 10, 2007
9:31 PM Post #3378004
| Rocco, radioactive rays and particles may not leave a radioactive residue, but they do alter the tissues, whether it be human tissue or food tissue. This tissue altering ability, whether used in radiation therapy, nuclear medicine or food processing, is the purpose in using the radiation to begin with. Even in diagnostic radiography there is an attempt to minimize the amount of radiation exposure due to the effect on the tissues of the body.
In terms of food processing, studies conducted on both laboratory animals and healthcare follow ups on humans, eating a diet high in irradiated foods have shown that these foods have a negative effect on the health of the organism consuming it.
[HYPERLINK@www.organicconsumers.org]
[HYPERLINK@www.organicconsumers.org]
[HYPERLINK@www.ratical.org] |
victorgardener
Lower Hudson Valley, NY
(Zone 6b)
April 11, 2007
3:40 AM Post #3378252
| GM, I doubt the reason to use it for food is to alter the tissues - it is to kill bacteria. According to Consumer Reports (hopefully unbiased), irradiated meats contain much lower bacterial counts, but not less than properly cooked meat! They claim their expert taste testers noted a difference in taste. They did note that the Europeans were investigating possible adverse chemical by-products. I think if there is a place for it, it is in restaurants and other 'outside of the home' food prep sites. How often do you hear about food poisoning in the home?? It's always at restaurants, on cruise ships, etc. They simply can't be relied upon to take the precautions you take at home. |
garden_mermaid
Sunnyvale, CA
(Zone 9b)
April 11, 2007
9:45 PM Post #3381878
| victor, I do understand that the point of the irradiation is to kill the bacteria. My point is that collateral effect on the food tissues has not been adequately considered by those promoting the irradiation as a way of protecting the food supply. Since the radiation used affects the tissues of the bacteria enough to kill it, I'm curious as to why you think it would not also affect the food tissues.
Radiation has been a popular treatment for potatoes (both "Irish" type and sweet potatoes) to prevent them from sprouting in storage. The changes that reduce/prevent sprouting also alters the nutritional value and digestibility.
I, like many consumers, want a choice. If all food in the stores and restaurants is irradiated, we don't have a choice. I want truth in labeling. If a product has been pasteurized, then label it pasteurized, don't call it raw unless it truly is raw. If pasteurized food is labeled as raw, if genetically engineered foods are not called out on the label, it takes away my choice. Those consumers who feel irradiation offers a safer food product, will buy the irradiated food. Those who don't want to eat irradiated food, will choose not to buy it. Let the market(consumers) decide what they want to buy.
|
victorgardener
Lower Hudson Valley, NY
(Zone 6b)
April 12, 2007
4:28 AM Post #3382251
| Of course there should be choice, as well as clear labeling. Personally, it's that big of an issue with me since we rarely eat out. And I am not saying that I am certain that the food tissue is not altered in some potentially harmful way. There just is no compelling evidence of that. Ironically, it does not kill bacteria as well as proper cooking so maybe people would get a false sense of security and those who like things very rare could be in trouble. But let's face it, people are afraid of it because they hear 'radiation'. They probably would not want to handle a piece of mail that has been radiated to kill anthrax either. |
garden_mermaid
Sunnyvale, CA
(Zone 9b)
April 13, 2007
6:55 PM Post #3388689
| Hopefully they are not eating the mail. |
victorgardener
Lower Hudson Valley, NY
(Zone 6b)
April 14, 2007
6:03 AM Post #3389782
| Wanna bet that if you held out an envelope or piece of paper, etc., and told people that it was irradiated, many, if not most, would not want to touch it? |
spot8907
Ida, MI
April 15, 2007
10:15 AM Post #3394408
| Touching something and eating it are two entirely different things. So is paper and food products, two entirely different animals. I'm with GM, I want choice and accurate labeling. Until the effects of ingesting irradiated food have been studied long term, you can't really say that its safe. We had hydrogenated oils etc. for a long time, they were originally considered safe. Look the stuff doesn't kill you or make you sick when you eat it. Takes a long time for some of the bad aftereffects to become known, personally I choose to err on the side of caution. |
victorgardener
Lower Hudson Valley, NY
(Zone 6b)
April 15, 2007
11:23 AM Post #3394595
| I am for labeling and disclosure, as I said. My point with the paper is that there is an inordinate fear of anything with the words radiation or nuclear in it. One of the reasons they changed the name of NMR to MRI was people's silly fear of the 'Nuclear' in the acronym. But in this case it referred to the nucleus in all of our cells. |
Rocco
Tulsa, OK
(Zone 7a)
April 15, 2007
4:14 PM Post #3395547
| Radioactive materials have many uses,especially in the medical field. My late wife had twenty five radiation treatments. The treatments didn't help but at the time gave us hope. I have had several heart and artery scans involving the injection of a radioactive isotope. The isotope injected has a very short half life and a low dosage. I have had two heart surgeries and have these scans at five year intervals. I don't glow in the dark!
Hang in there Victor. You and I are on the same wavelength! |
victorgardener
Lower Hudson Valley, NY
(Zone 6b)
April 15, 2007
4:29 PM Post #3395590
| Great choice of words, Rocco! Sorry to hear about your wife. |
Hineni
Appalachian Mtns, SW, VA
(Zone 6b)
May 1, 2007
10:02 AM Post #3451353
| I think we lose sight of *why* there is irradiation of food - because we are transporting it hundreds and thousands of miles from where it originates in many cases. Bacteria causes the deterioration of foodstuffs, and we can't have that when it's traveling days or weeks from supply to point of sale. Food-borne disease reduction is often listed as the primary reason, but I'm not so sure that is the entire picture. The USDA relates that it keeps quarantined species of bugs that normally wouldn't be present in the importing countries (maybe we shouldn't import eh?) But it primarily hypes it as a way to create large areas of trade that otherwise wouldn't be possible without some type of delay in the rotting rate of said consumables.
If we ate locally, sure, we might not have tomatoes when we always wanted them, but it would provide income for local farmers, lessen the carbon impact on our air supply, reduce traffic on our highways, and ...well, you get the picture :)
Instead, we as consumers insist on being able to eat what we want, when we want it regardless of season or even if it grows near us. We drive the hauling, the transporting, the importing of all these things that we simply *must* have. Yet, much of the produce in grocery stores and health food stores even, goes to waste before it can be sold unless is it prevented from deteriorating (commonly known as rotting). This is because we have so MUCH of it on our shelves because we can't stand a limited selection of something.
We suffer from an overabundance of foodstuffs, waste and more untested ways to prevent food from spoiling because our consumer culture appetites drive the wheel (in this case, literally...lol)
Rocco, I'm sorry to hear about the loss of your wife, and your own health battles.
I respect your position, but I choose life and health when I have a choice - and while I certainly think there are many benefits of science and medicine, there are far more things in both arenas that are harmful or unknown because we are simply short-sighted in many cases. We humans have an endless need to improve (in our minds anyway) on the life circle based on how we perceive it to assist us, and think less on the whole organism of earth and the long-term impacts of our so-called 'advances'.
Regards,
~Sunny |
spot8907
Ida, MI
May 2, 2007
6:36 AM Post #3454590
| Well said Sunny! |
victorgardener
Lower Hudson Valley, NY
(Zone 6b)
May 6, 2007
9:43 AM Post #3468713
| Unfortunately, locally grown food is often WAY more expensive than store bought. And in stores, 'organic' written anywhere on the package means they feel free to jack up the price. Many people don't have the luxury of paying the higher costs. There are many sides to all of these issues. It's never b & w. |
spot8907
Ida, MI
May 6, 2007
10:25 AM Post #3468864
| Considering the epidemic of obesity even among the poor in this country there is no reason to not pay a little more for what you buy but BUY LESS. Look at what is in peoples shopping carts at the checkout, particularly the ones who pull out the government foodstamps. Pop, chips, convenience foods and frozen meals, etc., etc. etc. These things arent cheap and have loads of useless calories. Then consider the waistlines of the average american. When was the last time you saw someone who looked like they were starving in this country?
One other aspect you have to consider is that if more people started paying the premium for locally grown organic food you would see a RISE in local incomes. Our money wouldn't be going overseas it would be going to our neighbor who in turn could buy other local products etc. Our economy has been hemoraging for years, we are becoming a nation that produces virtually nothing, our entire economy is unsustainable when you have the kind of trade deficit we do. |
darius
Marion, VA
(Zone 5b)
May 6, 2007
10:45 AM Post #3468944
| Right on, Spot. Obesity is the largest health problem in my area of the state, and it's always the obese who have all the calorie-laden fake foods in their carts. I'm currently overweight about 20 pounds, partly from winter inactivity, and partly from eating too many carbs (although mostly complex carbs) from my pantry while money has been tight. Now I again have home-grown greens for salads and will have veggies in 2 months after I get my garden put in, hopefully this week.
When I was a kid, my dad was stationed at a small base near the NC coast, and there was only 1 town nearby; we were bussed to school there, shopped there when the commisary didn't have what we wanted, etc. The locals always complained about the navy folks. So one week the Captain had everyone paid in cash, all $2 bills. When the townspeople saw the impact of the navy cash on their economy, the complaining sure slowed down.
There was a town near me in NC that had a system of barter dollars and a lot of folks participated. Even some of the dentists and docs took them to exchange for local food, labor, etc.
The thread on this forum about housing made from empty shipping containers stockpiled here because we don't export much anymore surely speaks to an unstainable economy. |
victorgardener
Lower Hudson Valley, NY
(Zone 6b)
May 6, 2007
11:24 AM Post #3469039
| Those are two separate issues. I am speaking about people who care about the quality of their food and prefer locally grown organic food. It's very expensive and when you combine it with all the other expenses a family has to deal with, it's no wonder they cannot afford it. Same for Seniors on fixed incomes. |
darius
Marion, VA
(Zone 5b)
May 6, 2007
11:49 AM Post #3469091
| Well, I cedrtainly qualify as a senior on a fixed income! |
victorgardener
Lower Hudson Valley, NY
(Zone 6b)
May 6, 2007
11:53 AM Post #3469106
| And if you didn't grow your own food and had to purchase from local organic growers, you'd probably have a problem, no? |
darius
Marion, VA
(Zone 5b)
May 6, 2007
11:54 AM Post #3469107
| You betcha! I do purchase local organic eggs and chicken. |
garden_mermaid
Sunnyvale, CA
(Zone 9b)
May 6, 2007
10:42 PM Post #3470923
| Out here, locally grown organic produce purchased at the Farmers Markets is less expensive than purchasing at the supermarket. Whole Foods is notorious for price gouging. Plus, less than 12% of the products at Whole Foods are organic.
The organic premium is usually smaller when you buy directly from the grower.
Organic processed foods are another matter. We have quite a few seniors on fixed incomes who are adamant about eating local, organic foods and notice a huge difference in their health by buying fresh ingredients and cooking from scratch.
Better health means less money spent on medications and doctor visits, of which Medicare covers less and less.
A diet based on whole grains, legumes and fresh vegetables and fruits will be less expensive that one based on processed or prepared foods. |
victorgardener
Lower Hudson Valley, NY
(Zone 6b)
May 7, 2007
12:23 PM Post #3472909
| Farmers Markets here are quite $$$. |
