Is the food you buy safe to eat?

[GoldenBrain]

Haha, I wouldn't classify a good portion of what people eat these days as "food". :p

This comment is one I agree with so much that it prompted me to start a new thread rather than completely hijack the fortune cookie thread.

Is the food you buy safe to eat? Do you even know where your food comes from or what's been sprayed on it?

My hope with this thread is simply to get people thinking about the foods they are consuming so to start things off I'll post a little bit of doom and gloom info on a popular weed control product.

Below is a link to a publication from the well established Food and Chemical Toxicology Journal. It sites a study on the popular weed control spray Round Up. The study found that the main chemical glyphosate in Roundup is carcinogenic at a rate of 1 part per trillion. That's really scary news since most things carcinogenic are so at rates in the parts per million which is bad enough.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691512005637

I could go on about this study but lets move on instead to genetically modified crops. Below is a link to an article in the Huffington Post which is reporting on a study relating Roundup ready crops and health problems. There are all kinds of studies now on the negative effects of GMO crops so I let you the reader look up those studies rather than posting a wall of links.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/23/monsanto-roundup-ready-miscarriages_n_827135.html

Put the two together and you have a real health problem. For those who don't know, Roundup ready crops are designed in a lab to be resistant to Roundup. This means that farmers can spray tons of this stuff on their fields to kill weeds without harming the food crops. Roundup has a surfactant built into the product to aid in the absorption of said product into the plants so it kills weeds systemically. This means that the food crops are also absorbing this weed killer, however due to their engineered resistance they don't die. This is why it is not recommended to use cow manure anymore for garden fertilizer because it can kill your garden. It isn't that the manure is bad per say, it's the weed killer in the manure that passes through the cow that's bad. Had any beef lately? Do you know for sure it wasn't eating Roundup ready Alfalfa?

Scared yet? Maybe not for some but I will continue to grow ALL my own produce and raise ALL my own animals. I feel bad for those who can't due to lack of garden space so I would encourage those folks to at least consider buying locally grown organic. Also I would recommend asking the seller all kinds of questions about how they grow and what they spray on their produce.

Okay, my rant is over so let the comments fly... Please feel free to site other studies or personal stories if you feel motivated.

[Jimbo]

I have just a few personal thoughts on this. More questions than answers.

First of all, I'm wondering if food allergies were as widespread in the past, before genetically modified crops, pollutants, etc. Or did people just die from various food allergies and not know the causes? I know one woman who claims she has a bad peanut allergy here, yet she can eat them in Europe. Might this be a difference due to modified/non-modified crops?

Are these issues geographical? Are instances of gluten intolerance as common in, say, Asian countries, where "gluten-free" is a fairly alien concept?

[sanjuro_ronin]

If it's dead, I'll eat it, if it's not, I'll kill it and then eat ( or maybe eat it and then kill it).

Gotta love living in "1st world" nations with "eating disorders" and "bad food".

Know what a eating disorder really is? Not having any food to eat !
Know what "bad food" really is? Food that you don't have give to your child that is screaming because they are starving.

Just saying...

[Lucas]

I only eat mutated, genetically modified, and lab grown forms of sustenance. Its all part of my master plan to become a super human. and im pretty fukin super.

[Lucas]

i live in a city full of urban farms, home farms, and organically grown rural farms. pretty much anywhere in this city you are within walking distance from a local farmers market selling a wide variety of all natural organic food stuffs.


its about the only good thing to come to be from all the **** hippies out here.

me? i say blast some death metal and kill all the hippies and eat horse meat grown quickly through immense amounts of radiation therapy and genetic growth manipulation.

[GoldenBrain]

I have just a few personal thoughts on this. More questions than answers.

First of all, I'm wondering if food allergies were as widespread in the past, before genetically modified crops, pollutants, etc. Or did people just die from various food allergies and not know the causes? I know one woman who claims she has a bad peanut allergy here, yet she can eat them in Europe. Might this be a difference due to modified/non-modified crops?

Are these issues geographical? Are instances of gluten intolerance as common in, say, Asian countries, where "gluten-free" is a fairly alien concept?

Those are interesting questions. I performed a cursory search for some answers but all I can tell at this point is that food allergies appear to be on the rise and there is not enough evidence to explain why.

[GoldenBrain]

If it's dead, I'll eat it, if it's not, I'll kill it and then eat ( or maybe eat it and then kill it).

Gotta love living in "1st world" nations with "eating disorders" and "bad food".

Know what a eating disorder really is? Not having any food to eat !
Know what "bad food" really is? Food that you don't have give to your child that is screaming because they are starving.

Just saying...


You make a great point. I bet most of the world would love to have our 1st world problems in trade for their 3rd world nightmares. Pretty much everybody in our family gets bent out of shape when we hear about people starving in this world. When we consider the tons of food that is just thrown away in this country alone it just makes us sick. I will be giving away about 50 lbs of squash and zucchini as well as many lbs of other veggies to a local shelter this week because we just have to much and there isn't any more room in our freezers. Kind of makes me sad in a way but at least we are doing our part to help the community. If every yard in this country were turned into a garden we would not only be able to feed the world but we would save about 2 billion gallons of fuel by not having to mow the lawns. It's certainly something to think about.

[Kymus]

I have just a few personal thoughts on this. More questions than answers.

First of all, I'm wondering if food allergies were as widespread in the past, before genetically modified crops, pollutants, etc. Or did people just die from various food allergies and not know the causes? I know one woman who claims she has a bad peanut allergy here, yet she can eat them in Europe. Might this be a difference due to modified/non-modified crops?

Are these issues geographical? Are instances of gluten intolerance as common in, say, Asian countries, where "gluten-free" is a fairly alien concept?

I doubt they were as widespread. These days, most people suffer from poor digestion, whether they realize it or not. It's my understanding that food allergies are mostly caused due to gut dysbiosis.

I don't have the data - and I don't know if it exists - on gut dysbiosis 50 - 100yrs ago, but I'd venture to guess that it was much more uncommon since these days we consume many more foods that aggravate the digestion.

TBH, I'm too lazy to look up data on food allergies in other countries :p

I think it really depends on the country, how westernized they are, and how closely they stick to their traditional diet. Japan wouldn't be a good example; despite all the fish and seafood they eat, they still eat a ton of processed foods, which is why their teeth are so screwed up (well, many, not all. Not trying to paint with a broad brush here).

I wouldn't be surprised to see more food allergies in countries with high soy consumption, since soy is hard to digest.

[Kymus]

If it's dead, I'll eat it, if it's not, I'll kill it and then eat ( or maybe eat it and then kill it).

Gotta love living in "1st world" nations with "eating disorders" and "bad food".

Know what a eating disorder really is? Not having any food to eat !
Know what "bad food" really is? Food that you don't have give to your child that is screaming because they are starving.

Just saying...

80% - 90% of all diseases are a result of diet and lifestyle. Yeah, starving is worse, but diabetes and heart disease isn't that much better. :(

[Kymus]

Careful GoldenBrain, there are some that like to paint those that are opposed to GMO and pesticides as anti-science hippies that are just over-reacting because they don't understand science and technology :p

Frankly, I think that when discourse is discouraged like this, there's a big problem.

[GoldenBrain]

Careful GoldenBrain, there are some that like to paint those that are opposed to GMO and pesticides as anti-science hippies that are just over-reacting because they don't understand science and technology :p

Frankly, I think that when discourse is discouraged like this, there's a big problem.

No worries Kymus. I'm not a hippie, just a concerned farmer, though I really have no problem hearing the opinion of anti-science hippies. I think everybody deserves an opinion whether I agree with it or not. It would appear that you feel the same way.

I love science but I think genetically modifying plants is best left to natural selection and true breeding. To do this in the lab is just lazy and possibly dangerous in my opinion.

I have numerous heirlooms of each plant category that blow away GMO plants. For instance, I grow a zucchini that can get as long and as big around as your arm and tastes way better than anything you can buy in the store. A couple of my tomato varieties, "bloody butcher" and "beefsteak" can get to the size of a melon and the slices are sometimes as big around as a dinner plate which require me to use a 10 inch bread knife to cut them. They are just ridiculous and have more flavor than you can buy commercially. I even have a variety of lemon called a ponderosa lemon that is as big as a grapefruit and grows well in North Texas, and a banana that will grow as far north as Oklahoma. That's just to name a few. All my heirlooms are pest and drought resistant and pull off huge yields so why would I need any of those lab created varieties? I'm sure those who place patents on those lab created varieties would like me to have them but I'm not going for it. As it is now I use no pesticides or weed killer and 100% of my fertilizer is in the form of compost which is just the waste vegetation from previous crops mixed with good old alfalfa which we also grow organically.

I'm just trying to point out that some things are better left to nature and good selective breeding.

[Jimbo]

No worries Kymus. I'm not a hippie, just a concerned farmer, though I really have no problem hearing the opinion of anti-science hippies. I think everybody deserves an opinion whether I agree with it or not. It would appear that you feel the same way.

I love science but I think genetically modifying plants is best left to natural selection and true breeding. To do this in the lab is just lazy and possibly dangerous in my opinion.

I'm just trying to point out that some things are better left to nature and good selective breeding.

Unfortunately, there are scientists and corporations who will do some very stupid things just because they can. Sorry if I stray too far off the topic, but a good example are those scientists who created an extremely deadly strain of the bird flu virus in the lab, "because it's important in case we need to create a vaccine for it." WTF??! That strain didn't even exist until they made it!!

Anyway, in terms of genetically modifying crops, poultry, meat, etc., it's all about the money. If you follow the trail of greed, you can see why people will mess around with nature to benefit themselves, without regard for any probable/certain consequences to the rest of the world in the long-term.

[GoldenBrain]

Unfortunately, there are scientists and corporations who will do some very stupid things just because they can. Sorry if I stray too far off the topic, but a good example are those scientists who created an extremely deadly strain of the bird flu virus in the lab, "because it's important in case we need to create a vaccine for it." WTF??! That strain didn't even exist until they made it!!

Anyway, in terms of genetically modifying crops, poultry, meat, etc., it's all about the money. If you follow the trail of greed, you can see why people will mess around with nature to benefit themselves, without regard for any probable/certain consequences to the rest of the world in the long-term.

Don't worry Jimbo, I agree 100% with you, so stray on brother. Everything you said is relevant to this thread.

I don't mind if this thread gets hijacked a little bit as long as it's either funny or simi relevant to the discussion and eventually gets back on topic. All opinions are welcome.

[Kymus]

FWIW: http://chriskresser.com/are-gmos-safe

I think Chris Kresser is one of few that approaches a topic skeptically without being a "skeptic" (which these days seems to mean blanket support for anything conventional and complete disregard for everything not).

[Kymus]

You may find this article interesting. It talks about the effects of industrial food vs a traditional, cultural diet (http://behealthynow.wordpress.com/2012/02/29/are-you-healthier-than/).

[Empty_Cup]

...

Anyway, in terms of genetically modifying crops, poultry, meat, etc., it's all about the money. If you follow the trail of greed, you can see why people will mess around with nature to benefit themselves, without regard for any probable/certain consequences to the rest of the world in the long-term.

Yes...and no. It's all about the money, but the twist is that it is what the public is asking for. The public wants convenient, inexpensive food. The corporations and mega-farms have gotten creative in how to supply this for the public. All the modifications, pesticides, etc. have been aimed at producing food on a monumental scale at lowest cost.

So, for the majority of us who can't raise our own animals and produce it will really come down to $$$ out of our pocket. If it's important to avoid the mass-produced stuff, then it will cost you more.

[Lucas]

pretty much. if you cant grow or raise your own food, you'll look at paying 50-100% increase for the quality foods, often times.

there are new innovative ways popping up to give people options to have quick easy access to quality grown foods, who otherwise don't have the time or don't put in the effort to seek healthy eating.

here is an example:

https://www.localplate.com/

[Kymus]

I strongly recommend this book (http://www.amazon.com/Urban-Homestead-Expanded-Revised-Edition/dp/1934170100) if you have any growing space; even just pots.

From there, if you want to grow more food, read this (http://www.amazon.com/Gaias-Garden-Guide-Home-Scale-Permaculture/dp/1603580298/).

Kindle versions are available for high-tech homesteaders like me :cool:

[Lucas]

I just go out at night and steal other peoples hard grown vegies and fruits out of all the shared garden spaces and urban farms that surround me like the walls of babylon.

im like a food robin hood.

[Kymus]

I just go out at night and steal other peoples hard grown vegies and fruits out of all the shared garden spaces and urban farms that surround me like the walls of babylon.

im like a food robin hood.

You could totally incorporate that in to a modern-day real world ninjitsu program (TM)

[Lucas]

You could totally incorporate that in to a modern-day real world ninjitsu program (TM)

lets make it happen. we split the take 50/50. we can have an online course, with a handbook and secret handshake for the ninja club and everything. in person courses i think would have to run at least 500 an hour to make it worth the time.

[Kymus]

lets make it happen. we split the take 50/50. we can have an online course, with a handbook and secret handshake for the ninja club and everything. in person courses i think would have to run at least 500 an hour to make it worth the time.

Esp for secret certified ninjaz

[GoldenBrain]

Okay Kymus and my Choctaw brother, what happens when you run into a certified ninja farmer like myself? Besides, I live in Texas which means that I can shoot you for stealing from me, but only at night. :D;)

[GoldenBrain]

I strongly recommend this book (http://www.amazon.com/Urban-Homestead-Expanded-Revised-Edition/dp/1934170100) if you have any growing space; even just pots.

From there, if you want to grow more food, read this (http://www.amazon.com/Gaias-Garden-Guide-Home-Scale-Permaculture/dp/1603580298/).

Kindle versions are available for high-tech homesteaders like me :cool:

These are great books Kymus! I own them both. The book in your second link discusses permaculture which I can't say enough good things about. The guru of permaculture is Masanobu Fukuoka. Below is a great video on his methods.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ft0ylk4sU5M

I also recommend:
"Mini Farming: Self-Sufficiency on 1/4 Acre"
"Aquaponic Gardening: A Step-By-Step Guide to Raising Vegetables and Fish Together"
"The Backyard Homestead: Produce all the food you need on just a quarter acre!"
"Organic Gardening"

There are so many more but I'll stop there.

[Lucas]

ah texas has anti ninja laws in place. In your situation, i would have to appeal to your brotherly love and plea for some of your grand ultimate produce to be shared with the needy msg ridden city folk.

[GoldenBrain]

ah texas has anti ninja laws in place. In your situation, i would have to appeal to your brotherly love and plea for some of your grand ultimate produce to be shared with the needy msg ridden city folk.

Well, in that case, I would happily give you some of my grand ultimate produce.

[Lucas]

I'd be happy with one of those plate sized slices of tomatoe and some salt!

[Jimbo]

Cool discussion, guys.

And props to you, GoldenBrain. You've got some mad produce kung fu. It sounds to me like you're really living the life!

[sanjuro_ronin]

80% - 90% of all diseases are a result of diet and lifestyle. Yeah, starving is worse, but diabetes and heart disease isn't that much better. :(

LIFESTYLE is the key element because from that comes WHAT we eat AND how MUCH.

[Kymus]

LIFESTYLE is the key element because from that comes WHAT we eat AND how MUCH.

True, certain people choose to eat better quality foods because they want to live a healthier life. Still, regular foods contain carcinogens (either chemical or are carcinogenic through physiology) and most folks have no idea what they're eating. Following the USDA's nonsensical food pyramid is a recipe for disaster.

Quantity certainly is important as well; especially when dealing with sugar and white flour. But things like meat and milk get thrown in to that group due to cohorts that people embarrassingly hold up as teh proof that they're bad for your health (when really, there's no evidence to suggest it's the food itself, the preservatives maybe, but not the food itself).

So yeah, for the most part I agree with you, Sanjuro! I just think that lots of people have no idea what it is they're eating (outside of something like soda) and feel that if it were dangerous, then the USDA would protect them from it which just isn't the case. That, and, health reporting in America is downright shameful.

[GoldenBrain]

Cool discussion, guys.

And props to you, GoldenBrain. You've got some mad produce kung fu. It sounds to me like you're really living the life!

Thank's bro! It's a good life for which I'm very thankful.

[SoCo KungFu]

Careful GoldenBrain, there are some that like to paint those that are opposed to GMO and pesticides as anti-science hippies that are just over-reacting because they don't understand science and technology :p

Frankly, I think that when discourse is discouraged like this, there's a big problem.

No, we just demand proof if you're going to make a claims such as this:

80% - 90% of all diseases are a result of diet and lifestyle


Yeah, starving is worse, but diabetes and heart disease isn't that much better.

I'll remember that next time I'm in South America or Africa and I'm looking at 6 year olds with their ribs sticking out, begging on the street side.

[SoCo KungFu]

Anyway, in terms of genetically modifying crops, poultry, meat, etc., it's all about the money. If you follow the trail of greed, you can see why people will mess around with nature to benefit themselves, without regard for any probable/certain consequences to the rest of the world in the long-term.

You're right. All those researchers I see around me every day, all those graduate students...yeah, none of them have a desire at all to feed their families back in countries in which droughts and crop disease make our "bad" harvest look like a once a century boon.

[SoCo KungFu]

I have just a few personal thoughts on this. More questions than answers.

First of all, I'm wondering if food allergies were as widespread in the past, before genetically modified crops, pollutants, etc. Or did people just die from various food allergies and not know the causes? I know one woman who claims she has a bad peanut allergy here, yet she can eat them in Europe. Might this be a difference due to modified/non-modified crops?

Are these issues geographical? Are instances of gluten intolerance as common in, say, Asian countries, where "gluten-free" is a fairly alien concept?

We live in an age of ****genization. Diet was something that for the greater part of human existence was regional. This is why articles like the one someone linked on the early 1900's Swiss village create a false argument. That diet would not work for the majority of people in the world. Never mind the other nonsense claims. Kids playing in glacial rivers in the winter? Yeah ok, I don't give a **** what you diet is, hypothermia is a *****. Did he happen to count their toes by chance?

[SoCo KungFu]

You may find this article interesting. It talks about the effects of industrial food vs a traditional, cultural diet (http://behealthynow.wordpress.com/2012/02/29/are-you-healthier-than/).

Diet is regionally specific. Most people in the world wouldn't be able to properly digest this type of diet because we lack the proteins to do so. There is no such thing as the perfect diet. I've already mentioned how nonsense the claim about kids playing in rivers is, and as such, extravegant claims discredit the rest of this Dr. Price's information. Lastly, decreased jaw space and issues of dental crowding have nothing to do with diet. Well actually that's not true, it is diet. But not human diet. Its because in the process of evolving into humans the increase in our cranial capacity necessitated the decreased in size of the zygomatic and jaw line. Our ape ancestors traded dental space for increased brain size. Those extra teeth were necessary when our ape forefathers were chewing through heavy vegetation which was havoc on teeth and required the extreme muscular strength provided by such a heavily developed masticators that our ancestors (and modern apes) have.

Such articles also have no mention of other disease factors. Yeah, I wonder why an isolated swiss village nearly a mile high above sea level had less disease than crowded, temperate to tropical locations of the world.

[Kymus]

Hi SoCo,


There is no such thing as the perfect diet.

There is no such thing as the perfect diet for every person, no. But there are principles one can follow to having a perfect diet.


extravegant claims discredit the rest of this Dr. Price's information.

That's a seriously reaching statement. I can't say with authenticity "all", but I'd say that at a bare minimum, "much" of Dr. Price's work has been proven. Have you read anything by Dr. Chris Masterjohn or Dr. Mary Enig? Dr. Masterjohn just finished a series of articles on the scientific approach of Dr. Price which discusses Dr. Price's study design at length. (here's a link to the last page (http://www.westonaprice.org/blogs/cmasterjohn/2013/06/08/the-scientific-approach-of-weston-price-part-7-placing-prices-work-in-context/), which has links to the other 6 pages, fwiw)


Lastly, decreased jaw space and issues of dental crowding have nothing to do with diet. Well actually that's not true, it is diet. But not human diet.

Why is it that every area that followed its traditional diet had perfect teeth while the industrialized ones didn't? :confused:


Yeah, I wonder why an isolated swiss village nearly a mile high above sea level had less disease than crowded, temperate to tropical locations of the world.

Sugar and white flour.

I will only ask one thing from you: if you're going to try to discredit something I say, please have familiarity with it. I don't mind if you disagree with me, not at all, but you demonstrate a very poor knowledge of Dr. Price's work.

In Dr. Price's time, genetics was used as an excuse to explain physical degeneration. Dr. Price always had a control group: a nearby town that was industrialized. Some of the controls he used were even twins.

Each culture that had followed their traditional diet had perfect teeth, well formed jaws, and were healthier overall. Dr. Price analyzed the food that they ate and sent what he could back to his lab in Ohio to analyze it. From there he found that their diets were all high in fat soluble vitamins and K2. This formed the basis of the Weston A. Price Foundation's dietary guidelines.

Considering that every group that followed these dietary guidelines had no disease, didn't really get sick, had perfect teeth and well structured faces, and the control groups which consumed an industrialized diet were ravaged with cavities, the children's faces looked pinched, and - at least in Switzerland - tuberculosis was a problem for them, I have to ask: why?

[Kymus]

That diet would not work for the majority of people in the world.

The principles of that diet have worked all over the world.


Kids playing in glacial rivers in the winter? Yeah ok, I don't give a **** what you diet is, hypothermia is a *****. Did he happen to count their toes by chance?

He's talking about their viral immunity. The observation has nothing to do with hypothermia.


During this period of time in Switzerland, tuberculosis was a major problem. Raw milk has been blamed at times for contributing to this pandemic, but government officials told Dr. Price that there were no recorded cases of TB in the Valley, ever. The people living there were so hardy that children would actually play in the freezing cold rivers (which were created from glacial runoff) barefoot and bareheaded, right in the middle of winter.

[Kymus]

No, we just demand proof if you're going to make a claims such as this:

No, generally the people I mention belong to the modern day pseudo-skeptic movement that worships all things conventional and rejects all things that are not, regardless of evidence. Why are they pushing statins and SSRI's and mammograms when they're continually shown in medical journals to be dangerous and counterproductive? The same thing goes for the GMO debate. The science isn't settled. Most of the research done has been industry funded. More research should be done. But, according to lots of people, if you dare to question GMO then you're afraid of science and technology.

I've got no problem providing evidence for the things I claim. You may disagree with it, and I may not even always be right, but never accuse me of pulling things straight out of the air.


I'll remember that next time I'm in South America or Africa and I'm looking at 6 year olds with their ribs sticking out, begging on the street side.

Really, SoCo, is such attitude like this necessary? I've always been courteous to you on this board and it seems that you just want to act like a b!tch. WTF bro?

Let me help you. Here's what you do, you say:


I disagree with this statement and I'd appreciate it if you could provide for me the evidence you base this off of.

Is it really that hard? :confused:

I don't have a problem with you man, and I'd like to not have a problem with anyone here (ok, I lied, there are two people I wouldn't mind punching, but you're not on my punch list :p). Can you please treat me with the same courtesy and respect that I do to you?

This is what I'm basing my statement on:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2515569/

Heart disease is a disease of diet and lifestyle, cancer is largely a disease of diet and lifestyle, diabetes is a disease of diet and lifestyle.

Are there other major diseases that I missed? I'm not talking about stuff like malaria, here.

Let me change my statement to the lawyer version:


Although there are many factors for disease, the major epidemics that we suffer from in the United States of America such as cancer, heart disease, obesity, and diabetes are largely the result of poor diet and lifestyle choices. Most of the time - depending on the severity - these diseases can be prevented and possibly treated with dietary and lifestyle interventions. Always consult your doctor or accredited health specialist before taking the advice off of someone from the internet. Side effects may include god-knows-what.

Are we on even ground now, my friend?

[Syn7]

I have so much to say about this topic that I have avoided saying anything.


I'm just going to say this:

Don't read opinion pieces about studies that had no peer review and miniscule datasets. They do us all a disservice. Read actual studies, they are available and relatively easy to find.

I catch **** from my progressive friends and fam all the time(and yes I am a progressive in the true sense of the word. No I am not a "liberal"). They make these claims they read off facebook links and never actually look deeper, they just parrot an opinion that jives with what they already wanted to believe.


As my godson would say... "Don do dat!"

[SoCo KungFu]

The principles of that diet have worked all over the world.

A nutritious diet means very little if the majority of people can't eat it, or at least without symptoms ranging from mild (the majority of cases) to potentially severe. Diminished lactase activity effects around 65% of the world population, hitting over 90% in Asia. Even here in the states people have trouble eating heavy unfermented dairy (and many have issues with fermented) without medicinal supplementation, and we're heavily Euro decent. I wonder why a Swiss village can sustain so well on such a diet? Because less than 5% of their population suffers from the side effects of said diet...

Healthy diet is just as much an emergent property of geographical location as any other disease factor. There is no such thing as a silver bullet diet. And anyone attempting to claim such is BSing in the face of everything we know about human physiology, genetics and disease pathology.


He's talking about their viral immunity. The observation has nothing to do with hypothermia.

Which has what to do with your premise (that 80-90% of disease is based on diet)? At best you have a non-sequitur. At worst you have a ridiculous claim in your link. The observation has everything to do with hypothermia (and any other cold exposure emergency). He's claiming that this population is so hardy that can do these great feats will no adverse effects (or at least, that's the implication). And he's using this to attempt to validate his claims to the miraculousness of their diet. Extraordinary claim is extraordinary. Its the same nonsense you see in fad alternative med marketing today. Its got magnetic power bands written all over it. And something so nonsensical should raise a red flag for anyone reading his piece. How is he supposed to be taken seriously when he's making ridiculous claims like this? Come on man, this isn't even an attack. Its pointing out what should be obvious.

[SoCo KungFu]

Hi SoCo,

There is no such thing as the perfect diet for every person, no. But there are principles one can follow to having a perfect diet.

Right, and those principles are far more than just avoid flour and sugar....


That's a seriously reaching statement.

No, its not at all. And in fact, that's reality. Go into any talk trying to defend a hypothesis and make extravagant claims and see how long you stay in the room.

And no, I typically don't get my info from blog sites. I have access to pub med, biosis, etc.


Why is it that every area that followed its traditional diet had perfect teeth while the industrialized ones didn't? :confused:

Perfect is a relative term. Tooth decay is a bacterial phenomenon. And while sucrose is a large part of that, its not the whole story. And this has nothing to do with my comment on jaw line. Totally different issue, as I've already described. But one more tid bit. Enamel is the hardest material created by an organism on this planet. And until very recently, it was the hardest organic material by any source, period. That should tell you something. Evolution has its hand print every where in this. Its no secret bacteria thrives off sucrose while is less abundant with fructose and glucose. Sugar doesn't rot your teeth, the bacteria that feeds on it does.


Sugar and white flour.

Explain how you've managed to isolate these two factors from the myriad of possibilities. Nothing to do with low latitude species abundance? Nothing to do with vector transmission of disease? (which btw, includes what we eat) Nothing to do with environmental suitability of microfauna? Nothing to do with genetics? Remember what I said in the other thread about what I think of any medicinal field that fails to understand the evolutionary contribution to disease pathology?

http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/disease-ecology-15947677

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982202013751



I will only ask one thing from you: if you're going to try to discredit something I say, please have familiarity with it. I don't mind if you disagree with me, not at all, but you demonstrate a very poor knowledge of Dr. Price's work.

Explain to me why I should follow up on an individual who, from just a cursory glance, makes unsubstiatable and down-right ridiculous claims. Never mind the whole issue of correlation vs causation.


In Dr. Price's time, genetics was used as an excuse to explain physical degeneration. Dr. Price always had a control group: a nearby town that was industrialized. Some of the controls he used were even twins.

Each culture that had followed their traditional diet had perfect teeth, well formed jaws, and were healthier overall. Dr. Price analyzed the food that they ate and sent what he could back to his lab in Ohio to analyze it. From there he found that their diets were all high in fat soluble vitamins and K2. This formed the basis of the Weston A. Price Foundation's dietary guidelines.

Considering that every group that followed these dietary guidelines had no disease, didn't really get sick, had perfect teeth and well structured faces, and the control groups which consumed an industrialized diet were ravaged with cavities, the children's faces looked pinched, and - at least in Switzerland - tuberculosis was a problem for them, I have to ask: why?

I've already answered this. Why are most Asians short? Why do Australian aboriginals have large supraorbital ridges?

Why would an industrial center would have a higher TB incidence rate than an isolated mountain village? It might have something to do with all the people lining the streets ya?

[SoCo KungFu]

Really, SoCo, is such attitude like this necessary? I've always been courteous to you on this board and it seems that you just want to act like a b!tch. WTF bro?

When you make a comment like heart diabetes and heart disease isn't much better than starvation, it doesn't make me "uppity" or "*****y," it ****es me the F off. It screams of privileged westerners trying to equate our 1st world problems with true f'n misery that gets imposed on the rest of the world. 1st world problems that arise in large part by how crappily we stomp all over everyone else's resources. I've done humanitarian work in some of these places when I was military. Trying to equate our crappy health in late life to the plight of people being murdered for food and clean water, its not even in the realm of appropriate.

If my posts have been abrasive, it's because I find this offensive. And after trying to toss bags of rice out the back of a Chinook while fully armed marines act as a riot squad because local warlords are trying to confiscate food from the starving locals so they can force them into subjugation, I challenge anyone here to experience that and not feel the same.


Heart disease is a disease of diet and lifestyle, cancer is largely a disease of diet and lifestyle, diabetes is a disease of diet and lifestyle.

And genetics, and environmental factors, and more and more we learn about the implications of human ecology and understand our own resident microbiome.

[GoldenBrain]

I've been tied down with a family reunion all day so this is the first time I have had a chance to add to this thread. When I created this thread I would have never imagined such a subject could turn into a heated debate. I respect both of your opinions and points of view SoCo and Kymus, but seriously, why don't y'all just perform a virtual handshake/man-hug and squash this business. Or, at least have a brawl and film it for our entertainment.:D

Seriously, I don't think anybody here is advocating letting poor people around the world starve to death. I'm fully aware that our 1st world problems don't amount to **** compared to some of the worst places to be in this world. With that said I also don't believe that GMO frankensteined foods are the only way to feed the starving people out there, and I don't think anybody here likes to ingest pesticides or herbicides in their food, which is really what this thread is all about.

So, I'll repost this link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ft0ylk4sU5M which is a wonderful documentary on a man by the name of Masanobu Fukuoka who spent his life farming the natural way without pesticides, herbicides or fertilizers and his yields are amazing. He uses a technique called permaculture which can be applied in most places on this earth. As long as you can get water there this method will work and really, if you can't get water there then there's not much hope of growing a GMO plant either.

I'd really like to hear Syn7's view on this topic as well and please SoCo and Kymus don't leave this thread because there's room for everybody's opinion.

[Kymus]

edit: I'm gonna try to tackle this through PM through some one on one moderation.

I'd like to avoid having problems with anyone on here. I don't see why we have to be flippant every time we disagree with someone on here. SoCo, check your PM's bro.

[Kymus]

I've been tied down with a family reunion all day so this is the first time I have had a chance to add to this thread. When I created this thread I would have never imagined such a subject could turn into a heated debate. I respect both of your opinions and points of view SoCo and Kymus, but seriously, why don't y'all just perform a virtual handshake/man-hug and squash this business. Or, at least have a brawl and film it for our entertainment.:D

Being wrong on the internet is a serious offence.


Seriously, I don't think anybody here is advocating letting poor people around the world starve to death. I'm fully aware that our 1st world problems don't amount to **** compared to some of the worst places to be in this world. With that said I also don't believe that GMO frankensteined foods are the only way to feed the starving people out there, and I don't think anybody here likes to ingest pesticides or herbicides in their food, which is really what this thread is all about.

Thank you for illustrating my point. As a Westerner, I don't have to worry about starving to death. I also don't live in the hood, so I don't have to worry about getting shot, either. I do have to worry about preventable diseases; the risk factors for such can be reduced through proper diet and lifestyle choices.

Too much soy? Thyroid disease (goitrogens)
Too much grain? Mineral deficiencies (phytates) among possible other things (anything and everything, depending on what study you want to believe. Gut dysbiosis for one. For the record though, I like bread :D)
Vegetable oils? Heart disease
(edit: some link meat and animal products with heart disease. I think that there is no evidence to prove this and I will mention it every chance I get because it's so absurd. :cool:)

The list goes on and on. We can even enter in to the nuances of HCA and BPA (which I think is overblown, but still, it's on the table right now in current events).

I've made a few dietary changes in my life. None of them gave me all that energy and lifefulness everyone always talks about when they start eating organic or eat more greens. The last few changes I made to my diet seemed to correlate with better viral immunity (I noticed I was getting sick much less). I'm not (*cough cough*) trying to make any wild claims. I see a positive correlation in my diet (an unintended one, at that), I'm happy with my diet, I know it's healthier, so I'm going to stick with it.


So, I'll repost this link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ft0ylk4sU5M which is a wonderful documentary on a man by the name of Masanobu Fukuoka who spent his life farming the natural way without pesticides, herbicides or fertilizers and his yields are amazing. He uses a technique called permaculture which can be applied in most places on this earth. As long as you can get water there this method will work and really, if you can't get water there then there's not much hope of growing a GMO plant either.

The idea that we need GMO to "feed the world" is bullsh!t. There have been a number of studies showing crop failure and poor yields after switching to GM crops. The most famous example is the cotton farmers in India.

Even if crop yield improved over conventional yield, as you said, permaculture can produce better results. Look at the Dervaes family; they have 1/10 of an acre of growing space and they can grow all their own food (for the record, no, I'm not saying that everyone should do this. All I'm saying is that this is an effective method. He!! I am tired of being taken out of context and having to add lots of stuff in parenthesis)

I've got a book somewhere packed away that discusses solely the effects of conventional farming. I've only read a little bit so far (I wanted to finish Dr. Howell's book on enzymes first), but it's the only book I know of that focuses solely on that (I have no idea what it suggests as alternatives; as I said, I've only read a tiny bit).

edit: found it! The Fatal Harvest Reader: The Tragedy of Industrial Agriculture (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/155963944X/).

[GoldenBrain]

Being wrong on the internet is a serious offence.

:eek: I am trembling, no seriously, shaking violently with terror... Bwaaahahahahaha!


Thank you for illustrating my point. As a Westerner, I don't have to worry about starving to death. I also don't live in the hood, so I don't have to worry about getting shot, either. I do have to worry about preventable diseases; the risk factors for such can be reduced through proper diet and lifestyle choices.

You're welcome, and well said!



The idea that we need GMO to "feed the world" is bullsh!t. There have been a number of studies showing crop failure and poor yields after switching to GM crops. The most famous example is the cotton farmers in India.

Even if crop yield improved over conventional yield, as you said, permaculture can produce better results.

Indeed.

[Syn7]

OMG... please read actual studies.

Even the father of the Green revolution, Norman Borlaug, known affectionately as "The Man Who Saved A Billion Lives", clearly states that organic farming can only feed like a 3rd of the planet. And there were WAY less people when he said that. Does that mean all GMO's are great and that the people who make them act responsibly? No, of course not. Big biz is always douchy to some extent. But we shouldn't **** all over the actual science because it's being abused.


Please please please read actual PEER reviewed studies. You beef isn't with the idea, it's with the practice. Know the difference. This is important.


This is why I don't want to talk about it. Too much to say. So many misconceptions.

[GoldenBrain]

I hear you Syn and totally understand why you don't want to talk about it. For the record I've never read anything from Norman Borlaug. I draw my organic opinions from personal experience. I agree with you that 100% positive conclusions should only be made after studies go through a peer review but that doesn't mean people can't state their opinions. You and anybody else are free to disagree at any time which is always cool with me. I'm not ****ting on science but I do think there is some evidence to suggest that this GMO science is being abused or at least fast tracked to open field testing which may cause lasting problems in our environment.

I think I would be more wiling to back GMO farming if we were facing a problem such as what is being found with antibiotic resistant bacteria. To my knowledge there is no reason to believe the plants we have grown for centuries have somehow become water resistant or soil resistant. Sure there are insects and weeds but short of a locust invasion which GMO will not solve there really isn't a problem here. Weeds are in most cases easy to control and often beneficial since they help to add vital nutrients to the soil.

Take for instance the method of growing corn, squash and beans together. The squash is grown around the base of the corn which keeps weeds from growing to close and the beans are allowed to climb the corn which keeps the vining weeds at bay. I use this method in parts of our garden and it works well. My Choctaw ancestors called it the three sisters and it's been proven over time.

[GoldenBrain]

I could only find 42 studies on GMOs effects, most of which fall between 1998 and 2002. This surprises me because of it's potential to damage the environment. I would think studies on this sort of science would be a big deal. I haven't read all 42 yet but I will go through them in time so for now I'll just focus on the more recent releases.

Below is the most recent peer reviewed study I could find. It discusses the negative effects of GMO feed to pigs. This study was performed in both the US and Australia over 5 years.


Here's the PDF:
http://www.organic-systems.org/journal/81/8106.pdf

Here's the site where the study can be found:
http://www.organic-systems.org/journal/81/index.html

Here's a press release on the study:
http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/press-releases/2291/new-peer-reviewed-study-on-gmo-pig-feed-reveals-adverse-effects

[Kymus]

OMG... please read actual studies.

Even the father of the Green revolution, Norman Borlaug, known affectionately as "The Man Who Saved A Billion Lives", clearly states that organic farming can only feed like a 3rd of the planet. And there were WAY less people when he said that. Does that mean all GMO's are great and that the people who make them act responsibly? No, of course not. Big biz is always douchy to some extent. But we shouldn't **** all over the actual science because it's being abused.


Please please please read actual PEER reviewed studies. You beef isn't with the idea, it's with the practice. Know the difference. This is important.


This is why I don't want to talk about it. Too much to say. So many misconceptions.

If you farm organic produce the same way you farm conventional produce, I'd agree that it's inefficient. It's not sensible to do large monocrop farming in general, IMO. Organic or conventional. This is why permaculture is the way. Of course, I have no idea if any scientific data has been published regarding permaculture; I'm not very familiar with agricultural science.

I've seen a number of studies regarding GMO and crop failure. Unfortunately, I don't bookmark every study I see, so I'm at a loss for data. As I said, the cotton famine in India is the most well known and you can find a lot of data on that if you're interested. I understand of course that it's just a single crop (BT Cotton), but in this instance, I'm just using it as an example to suggest that GM crops aren't what they're promised.

I don't know the numbers when it comes to agricultural studies with GMO, but with health studies, the majority of them are industry funded, which leaves us with remaining questions (IMO, more independent research should be done).

In general, I think the debate is being framed wrongly. There are ways to "feed the world" that don't involve growing grains to export to nations with a high population of starving people. One would be reducing food waste, and other would be to tackle politics that are affecting developing nations and those areas with abject poverty and starvation. Why do these other things never get mentioned in these sorts of discussions? The only thing I hear over and over is that we need to "feed the world" and GMO is the only way. IMO, it's not coincidental that GMO is a huge business (*).

(*disclaimer: I'm just making a suggestion; I'm not offering this as proof of anything. If anyone thinks I am implying anything, I am not.)

[Kymus]

I could only find 42 studies on GMOs effects, most of which fall between 1998 and 2002. This surprises me because of it's potential to damage the environment. I would think studies on this sort of science would be a big deal. I haven't read all 42 yet but I will go through them in time so for now I'll just focus on the more recent releases.

Below is the most recent peer reviewed study I could find. It discusses the negative effects of GMO feed to pigs. This study was performed in both the US and Australia over 5 years.


Here's the PDF:
http://www.organic-systems.org/journal/81/8106.pdf

Here's the site where the study can be found:
http://www.organic-systems.org/journal/81/index.html

Here's a press release on the study:
http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/press-releases/2291/new-peer-reviewed-study-on-gmo-pig-feed-reveals-adverse-effects

Golden Brain, I think that may be a little off topic, no? I think Syn's talking about crop yield right now (though given, often these two discussions go hand in hand).

Anyway, about this study, there is a popular counter-claim to it that's circling around amongst the true-believers (showing once again how much science has been politicized and how people are in their own camps). IMO, the guy seems like an industry hack, but I've got nothing to prove it, so I'm not going to make any accusations of him.

Dr. Chris Masterjohn, a biochemist I have a lot of respect for, had a few comments about the counter-claims that I thought I'd share:


He correctly criticizes data fishing in the paper, but the criticism of the stomach inflammation data is weak. The paper showed a shift from moderate stomach inflammation to severe, which is a worsening. His criticism of the animal husbandry isn't very convincing because he doesn't cite normal rates of mortality and disease on typical US farms. I'll look at the paper in more detail but it does seem from the legit points he made to be a fishing expedition.



Both the review and the comments seem driven by ideologues intent on tearing down anything against GMOs and the philosophical approach he lays out in his intro is absolutely preposterous. Nevertheless, even if he's an industry hack, whatever legit points are in his critique are still legit points.


I started to read the comments and really don't want to finish. I see one person defending the study (who clearly agrees with its ideological bent, though she seems honest) against a bunch of knee-jerk ideologues bent on tearing the study apart, lacing a sprinkling of good arguments through terrible arguments. The supporter, Madeline, is not correct that this is a "dosing" study, even though it in some indirect away amounts to one. As a hypothesis-driven study it is a study that compared the use of GMO and non-GMO feed as would occur in the market on farm situations, which can generalize to farm situations. Criticizing this as "uncontrolled" without noting anything positive about the design is thoroughly outrageous. Of course it detracts from the ability to make a categorical statement of comparing presence vs absence of GMOs, but its very clear strength is that it is suitable for realistic inferences about what would happen to pigs on industrial farms fed these grains purchased commercially as they generally are.

I was hoping he'd write an article about the controversy, but he has not. I'll have to see if some of the other biochemists I've got a lot of respect for have touched it.

[Kymus]

This article (http://www.activistpost.com/2012/03/scientists-warn-epa-over-monsantos-gmo.html) mentions a group of scientists that are against GMO. Does anyone know what group it's talking about? Is it politically active? What is the background of the scientists involved?

Maybe it's because it's late, but I'm not seeing any mention of names..


(disclaimer: I understand that the article I linked to has links to anti-GMO information that may or may not be questionable. The purpose of my posting that link was solely to find out more information about the group mentioned. I have not looked at any of the links given, nor is my opinion on this topic tempered by them or this site. Once again, I'm not implying anything.)

[Syn7]

Stick to publically funded studies done through universities and credible organizations. Problem solved. If you get your news from anywhere else, you will get spin. Period. So many agendas here. I'm not saying I don't love the idea of things like urban microfarming and all that. I'm just saying that GMO's do not = bad. It's too broad a statement and it trivializes the whole debate. The nuances here are many and quite often subtle. Lemme just end by saying this: A lot has changed since the whole DDT thing that started all this. That was a long time ago and we've learned a lot. Have we learned it all? NO. Of course it's a continuing process. But there is NO DOUBT that we are better off now than EVER before in the history of mankind. Don't even get me started about the whole vaccine thing. lol... :)

[GoldenBrain]

Golden Brain, I think that may be a little off topic, no? I think Syn's talking about crop yield right now (though given, often these two discussions go hand in hand).

You may be right but I wasn't referencing that study necessarily to debate with Syn. He's a pretty smart individual who doesn't seem to want to get into this debate so I'm not going to try to draw him in or attempt to out science him. Besides, I already stated my opinion on the method of farming that I feel is best. For me it's permaculture all the way which is why I can grow the "grand ultimate produce."

Personally I don't even see why there is a debate on this because it seems obvious to me. Permaculture is a proven method that uses no pesticides, herbicides or fertilizer and yields productive, massive and tasty crops. It's true that I live in the 1st world but if I live in the 3rd world it'd still be a no brainer for me because I wouldn't have to purchase pesticides, herbicides or fertilizers so its completely affordable and sustainable. It may not be the answer to the worlds hunger problem but at this point I don't see why GMOs would be any better.

It just doesn't seem natural or safe to me to engineer frankenfoods to make their own pesticides or be resistant to herbicides in order for commercial farmers to be able to drench their crops with them. To me, weeds are beneficial since they help to provide the vital nutrients that food crops need. Also, many weeds are edible and nutritious as well as medicinal so why would anybody feel they have to kill them?

[GoldenBrain]

Thanks Syn for adding that last bit. You're absolutely right on which studies to draw conclusions from. I'll admit that I sometimes allow my personal bias to influence my opinion. I think most of us do this except for the most rigid scientists among us. At least I'm willing to admit this. I still haven't changed my opinion on GMOs yet but that's not to say I wouldn't be willing to if there is real evidence to show me that those methods are better than what I use. Of course, I'm not starving so I have the luxury to voice this opinion where others less fortunate would be happy with just a bag of rice and a cup of water.

[Syn7]

I'm biased too.... we all are. I am constantly battling my own assumptions. I have to check myself all the time. Who better to put you on blast than yourself? Ya know. It's also ok to simply say "I don't know". And quite frankly, there is a lot that we all don't know. My ideal world and the world I see as practical and possible are two different places. We, as humans, have evolved over a very long time. We have made huge technological leaps in the last few thousand years and more specifically the last few decades, but we are still the same people we were before we had all the stuff we have now. In the past, assumptions saved our lives. They still do. But we have tools we never had before and we should foster and develop them as best we can. There is no doubt that we are all, collectively, better off for it. Child mortality rates are lower than ever. We live longer. We experience less pain, in general. The benefits far outweigh the alternatives. It's pretty scary how fast the fringe elements can become mainstream. But I would never stop anyone from choosing how they feed themselves. It's just very complicated and about way more than pesticides and modifications. Anyways.... ;)

[Kymus]

Personally I don't even see why there is a debate on this because it seems obvious to me. Permaculture is a proven method that uses no pesticides, herbicides or fertilizer and yields productive, massive and tasty crops. It's true that I live in the 1st world but if I live in the 3rd world it'd still be a no brainer for me because I wouldn't have to purchase pesticides, herbicides or fertilizers so its completely affordable and sustainable. It may not be the answer to the worlds hunger problem but at this point I don't see why GMOs would be any better.

IMO, it comes down to money. People are making money off of GMO (and large-scale monocrop farming), so therefore, it's being pushed heavily. I knew about GMO before I heard about permaculture!

I think that permaculture, given that it can show people how to grow a lot of food in a small area, would be great to teach to people since it would help to empower them. While you can't grow crops out in the freezing cold, there are a number of ways to make permaculture suitable for most any climate.

[GoldenBrain]

Well said Kymus and Syn!

[GoldenBrain]

I would love to hear about other forum members experiences with backyard gardening and or full scale farming.

Does anybody here grow their own food? Do you use heirlooms, GMO, organic, outdoor, indoor, greenhouse, permaculture...etc?

I'm interested in what methods y'all found to be successful as well as what failed.

[Kymus]

I try to stick to heirloom and wild varieties whenever possible.

[Jimbo]

I would love to hear about other forum members experiences with backyard gardening and or full scale farming.

Does anybody here grow their own food? Do you use heirlooms, GMO, organic, outdoor, indoor, greenhouse, permaculture...etc?

I'm interested in what methods y'all found to be successful as well as what failed.

I'm ashamed to say I don't grow anything special, but several years ago, a family friend gave us a New Zealand spinach plant. I planted it in the soil, and it grows and spreads very prolifically. It spreads almost like a weed, but unlike weeds, it's easily pulled out from areas where it isn't wanted. It isn't actually related to spinach, but cooks up just the same, and is delicious.

[Syn7]

http://www.adafruit.com/adablog/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/BNfwlnVCAAElGPR.jpg


Drones evolve into a new tool for ag

http://www.agriculture.com/farm-management/technology/drones-evolve-into-a-new-tool-f-ag_322-ar31423


Doncha love how I find a way to turn every thread into a tech thread! :D

[GoldenBrain]

Doncha love how I find a way to turn every thread into a tech thread! :D

Hahahaha! Why yes, actually I do. I'm always interested in the latest tech and I'd love to have my own drone to fly around.

[GoldenBrain]

I'm ashamed to say I don't grow anything special, but several years ago, a family friend gave us a New Zealand spinach plant. I planted it in the soil, and it grows and spreads very prolifically. It spreads almost like a weed, but unlike weeds, it's easily pulled out from areas where it isn't wanted. It isn't actually related to spinach, but cooks up just the same, and is delicious.

I've got something around our property called "pokeweed" which cooks up like spinach only it needs to be double boiled like greens and it grows about 8ft tall. Sometimes the tastiest things grow as wild as weeds.

[GoldenBrain]

7550

Here's some of my grand ultimate produce that we picked today. Yes, those big green ones are zucchini and that one on the left is 14" long and almost as big around as a two liter bottle. That's a 25" farmers sink they are piled up in. There's also straight necked squash and a few pickling cucumbers in that mix. Typically cucumbers don't do well in our TX heat so we are pretty happy to have a few of these beauties. They were all grown without fertilizer, pesticides or herbicides. We just use compost to amend our soil when needed and allow the weeds to do the rest.

[RenDaHai]

There are two approaches most people take to science.

1. Reductionist (reducing things to their components and assuming the parts make the whole)

2. Holistic (looking at the emergent properties of a system as a whole, assuming the whole is more than a sum of its parts)

Modern sciences like quantum physics, neuroscience and GENETICS have exceeded the ability of reductionism to predict. To move forward it is becoming clear that a new type of maths able to deal with complex systems is required. We do NOT have this yet.


The problem lies here. Because holistic prediction uses psuedo-science, this is because the actual science is not known. To foolish people this psuedo science is easily destroyed because applying reductionism to it it immediately falls apart under scrutiny.

Unfortunately they do not understand that that is the nature of Holism, that the sum is more than the parts and that the parts don't matter. Like looking at the equation X=Y+Z, if we are interested in the relationship, it doesn't matter what the variables are as long as they maintain the equality.

So there is a huge reductionist bias in modern science, where holistic approaches are often treated with ridicule. Then people attempt to prove holistic approaches wrong by REDUCING them and showing they don't work. What they have actually demonstrated is their own stupidity since the whole point is a holistic science cannot be reduced.

To anyone forward thinking it is clear BOTH reductionism and holism are simultaneously necessary.



The current treatment of GM crops is UNFORGIVABLE stupidity. It is an example of this reductionist bias. I am ALL for the research, but it needs to be done under a super controlled environment. Why? We have NO even small idea of the larger consequences on larger timescales of this, and if it was reversible, fine. But it is IRREVERSIBLE. Why? Soon all corn in the world will have cross bread with GM strains, you can't get rid of that, the system is too large.


Stop the world starving??? The world is not starving because of low crop yields. This is a ridiculously simple way of looking at it. Again, reductionism over reaching its bounds.


'Plenty has killed far more than famine, people wanting more than their share'

[pazman]

Modern sciences like quantum physics, neuroscience and GENETICS have exceeded the ability of reductionism to predict. To move forward it is becoming clear that a new type of maths able to deal with complex systems is required. We do NOT have this yet.


Dahai, what kinds of maths have you studied?

Machine learning, stochastic calculus, cellular automata, etc. all have incredible insight into a "holistic" view on science.

The problem is that we don't have the maths, it's that the financial world has sucked up a lot of the brainpower that could be used in solving real problems, not developing new ways for rich people to skim money.

[RenDaHai]

Dahai, what kinds of maths have you studied?

Machine learning, stochastic calculus, cellular automata, etc. all have incredible insight into a "holistic" view on science.

The problem is that we don't have the maths, it's that the financial world has sucked up a lot of the brainpower that could be used in solving real problems, not developing new ways for rich people to skim money.

I read physics at uni and admittedly, I was not good enough at the maths.

Cellular automata I have not come across, I will look into it, it looks interesting. Thanks.

But I am talking about intelligent systems, not the summation of random values but things that are compelled to be a certain way by a compelling factor that remains unknown.

It has been 10 years since i have even attempted to keep up to date with stuff, but I am pretty certain there is a large void in this area.


You are probably right about the financial world poaching talent. But I think the problem is deeper in the way people look at things.

[GoldenBrain]

Very well put RenDaHai! Thanks for contributing to this thread!

[GoldenBrain]

A new peer-reviewed study published in the International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability found that conventional plant breeding, not genetic engineering, is responsible for yield increases in major U.S. crops. Additionally, GM crops can’t even take credit for reductions in pesticide use.


GM crops are not a solution, in part because they are controlled by strict IP instruments. Despite the claims that GM might be needed to feed the world, we found no yield benefit when the United States was compared to W. Europe, other economically developed countries of the same latitude which do not grow GM crops. We found no benefit from the traits either.

Here's the study:

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14735903.2013.806408#.Uc3s3xbhC2w

[Kymus]

I was curious to know more about the journal, so I googled.

FWIW, the USDA lists them in the top 10 (http://www.nal.usda.gov/afsic/pubs/agnic/susagjournals.shtml) of sustainable agriculture journals.

At least, as of 2009.

[Syn7]

Monsanto unapproved GMO wheat govt-stored up to 2011

http://rt.com/usa/monsanto-gmo-wheat-government-439/

[GoldenBrain]

Monsanto unapproved GMO wheat govt-stored up to 2011

http://rt.com/usa/monsanto-gmo-wheat-government-439/


Ouch! Monsanto insisted that all of this unapproved wheat was incinerated in 2005. They also insist that the contamination of the Oregon field was sabotage. Hmmmm, me thinks they are telling fibs.

[Syn7]

Yeah... and what a coinkidink that they got a 6 month window where they cannot be legally held responsible for just such a thing a few weeks before it became known. I guess thats what happens when you make former Monsanto execs the head of the FDA. Nice huh!!!

[GoldenBrain]

You gotta wonder how these sleaze bags sleep at night. It prolly helps that they lay under quilts made of $100.00 bills. The sheeple in this country are either getting dumber or just stopped giving a ****. Well, to be fair, some care but it would appear that they are definitely in the minority.

[Kymus]

Sustainable Farm Practices Improve Third World Food Production


Jan. 24, 2006 — Crop yields on farms in developing countries that used sustainable agriculture rose nearly 80 percent in four years, according to a study scheduled for publication in the Feb. 15 issue of the American Chemical Society journal Environmental Science & Technology. The study, the largest of its kind to date -- 286 farm projects in 57 countries -- concludes that sustainable agriculture protects the environment in these countries while substantially improving the lives of farmers who adopt the resource-conserving practices.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/01/060123163315.htm

[GoldenBrain]

Sustainable Farm Practices Improve Third World Food Production

Awesome report, but the truth be known, and as you know Kymus, most of us out here who use sustainable farm methods already knew this. I'm am happy to see this info being shared with the folks who haven't discovered the realz yet. It doesn't surprise me that many people out there want to be hand fed GMO seeds since they want to be hand fed everything else in their lives, but maybe studies like this can sway them over to the sustainable organic side.

[Syn7]

Your problem is with the practice, not the actual science. You don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. Do douchebags exploit the science for personal gain? Of course. Does this mean GMO = Bad? Not necessarily. Can it be bad? Sure... But mark my words, this will be the future.

Think about how long we bled people and fed them(and still do) insane chemicals to get where we are now. This is the price of progress. Does this mean we should just let corps bring crap to market w/o proper study? Of course not.

There are two conversations here and I find it disappointing that most people are unable or unwilling to separate them.

It reminds me of the nuclear energy talks. Nobody is really talking about where we would be had our main objective been a cleaner, cheaper energy policy rather than building ginormous bombs.

I find it so sad that as soon as I say that GMO's aren't evil that people seem to want to attach every argument they ever heard to my statement. Not saying you guys did that, but it happens all the time.

So you can see why I just avoid the topic for the most part.

[GoldenBrain]

Your problem is with the practice, not the actual science.

Yes, exactly! I really should make more of an effort on my part to separate the two arguments. GMO is not necessarily a bad thing. We have been modifying crops for centuries but the lab modified GMO is a new thing to our species and it's progressing a bit to fast in my opinion, but it does need to progress. I would feel a little more at ease if they would just treat it like a biohazard until it is stamped as totally safe to release to the environment.

[Syn7]

I had a very interesting conversation recently about how fast is too fast. Lots of stuff to factor in on that one. Not an easy question.

[Lucas]

I had a very interesting conversation recently about how fast is too fast. Lots of stuff to factor in on that one. Not an easy question.

ask (instert dude you want to rip on)'s girlfriend.

[RenDaHai]

I have a question;

Is making ourselves more DEPENDANT on technology always moving forwards??

I mean, yeah, lets find out more about the nature of the universe, lets discover things, lets cure diseases, lets make computers and robots etc. But can't we do all this while keeping ourselves grounded and knowing how to do some stuff for ourselves.

What if we make a GMO crop that can literally seed and harvest itself, produce its own pesticide, fight its own diseases. Aren't we missing something fundamental?

I am all for a lot of research. But massively against implementation before its time. Once GM crops are released they contaminate natural ones. This is unacceptable.

I spent years learning about science and society, now you know what? I want to learn about how to plant and harvest, how to hunt and butcher, how to set a fire, how to build a house. Are there universities for that kind of thing?

I don't think we should forget that we are at the mercy of nature and live at her pleasure.

****, I'm starting to sound like a hippy....

[Syn7]

I have a question;

Is making ourselves more DEPENDANT on technology always moving forwards??

I mean, yeah, lets find out more about the nature of the universe, lets discover things, lets cure diseases, lets make computers and robots etc. But can't we do all this while keeping ourselves grounded and knowing how to do some stuff for ourselves.

What if we make a GMO crop that can literally seed and harvest itself, produce its own pesticide, fight its own diseases. Aren't we missing something fundamental?

I am all for a lot of research. But massively against implementation before its time. Once GM crops are released they contaminate natural ones. This is unacceptable.

I spent years learning about science and society, now you know what? I want to learn about how to plant and harvest, how to hunt and butcher, how to set a fire, how to build a house. Are there universities for that kind of thing?

I don't think we should forget that we are at the mercy of nature and live at her pleasure.

****, I'm starting to sound like a hippy....

Too late. It's already a done deal. It will take time for it to spread across the globe, but spread it will. And I agree, implementing anything before it's time is a bad call.

I grew up spending a lot of time with my grandfather who was running a trapline by the time that he was like 12. Gun, dog, traps, away from home for months at a time. I learned a lot from him and I wouldn't trade it for anything. I can make fire from common things found anywhere, the only requirement is "dry". I can make tons of different traps and such. I can build shelters from stuff you find in the forest. The list goes on. It's pretty area specific though. Like I would have no idea what to eat if I was in a south american jungle, but I would still have a head start over anyone who doesn't know any of this. I feel all these things are important and I wouldn't trade that knowledge for anything.

On the other hand, he was also a pilot, forest ranger and engineer. So I learned a lot about all that too. My biggest regret is that we never got to build our ultralight. I learned a lot about electrical and mechanical engineering from him. Some basic chemistry and a wee bit of biology. TONS of physics.

So now I love all those things and was exposed to them in a very positive way quite early on. And honestly, it kinda bothers me that most people don't know how their "majik boxes" actually work. Hell, most people don't even know how a TV tube works let alone a high res LCD.

I feel it's important to know both sides of the coin. But make no mistake, IMO it is the same coin. You can't do it all, of course. But there is nothing stopping people from learning the basics and being well rounded. Kinda reminds me of the people who watch the food network for three hours then ***** about how they have no time to cook real food. Ridiculous.

I hear ya! But I see technology in the Arthur C. Clarke way. It frees us from the daily grind allowing us more time to develop other interests and so on. It wasn't that long ago that you learned your dads trade and that was that. Dawn till dusk and more... every day all year. You don't have to be an aristocrat of you wanna learn to paint, know what I mean?

I don't think it's hippyish. Sounds sensible to me. As long as you don't swing too far to one side.

[GoldenBrain]

Is making ourselves more DEPENDANT on technology always moving forwards??

I'll answer your question with a resounding no. I think making ourselves dependent on anything will only serve to weaken us. I feel that using technology to enhance our lives is ok as long as we don't loose our connection to the earth we live on and that we don't do it in an unsafe manner.


I am all for a lot of research. But massively against implementation before its time. Once GM crops are released they contaminate natural ones. This is unacceptable.

I feel the same way which is why I think this type of research should be treated like a biohazard and contained until it's deemed totally safe. That means years and years of research and not fast tracked for the $$$'s.

One thing to consider is that we've been naturally genetically modifying plants for centuries so in principle it's not necessarily a bad thing. For example, corn is only corn as we know it because we modified maize genetics for generations until it became corn. GMO is a little scary and to me unnecessary but if done correctly I'm okay with the research. As Syn pointed out it's a problem with the practice and not the actual science. Implemented correctly, laboratory modified crops could be beneficial to our species.

With that said RenDaHai, we aren't that far apart you and I. I was very lucky to have invested well and therefore was able to retire at a relatively young age. I retired a Senior IT Analyst from a fortune 50 company that anybody in the US would know by name though I'll keep that to myself for now. At some point I just became burned out on technology. Don't get me wrong, I still use some tech such as this nifty Mac that I'm typing on right now, or my iPhone, or my awesome new 70" 3D TV:D...etc but I demand this tech work for me to enhance my life rather than me for it. I don't feel that I'm dependent on this tech either because at any point I could burn it all, live off the land and never look back.

I have spent the last few years or so weaning myself from my IT life and relearning how to do things more down to earth such as farming, carpentry and other types of wood working, electrical, plumbing...etc. I've spend the last year or so building this excellent house I live in with my amazing wife and child. My dad, who I owe so much of this knowledge to, and I literally built every square inch of this house as well as their home with our own two hands. I've also been very fortunate to learn from my Choctaw brothers and sisters a great many primitive skills such as building fire, making pottery, foraging for wild edibles and medicinals, making weapons, skinning and butchering animals such as buffalo...etc. Many of these skills just can't be purchased, but instead must be handed down generation after generation.

Sorry for the long winded response but I guess what I'm trying to say is sounding like a hippy isn't all that bad. Peace to you and yours!


Edit: I just read Syns response which was posted while I wrote this reply, and it would appear that we aren't that far apart either. It's good to know there are other like minded folk out there.

[Syn7]

Ok, well I can build an RF jammer on perfboard, but that pottery **** is way outta my league. Seriously, you should see the cup I made my mom for mothers day in elementary school :p I don't even feel comfortable calling it a cup. I suppose it would hold liquid for a limited amount of time, but drinking from it is just right of the question.

I would like to give it another shot. Do you know how to harvest/blend/make/whatever the materials too? I could make one of them spinner deals in like 5 minutes though. I totally feel like this is a skill I should have.


So... while most people watch alien clips, memes, horrid accidents and stuff like that on you tube... I spend my youtube time watching DIY vids. You can learn anything on there if you know how to look for it and weed out the idiots with a cursory glance.

[RenDaHai]

Awesome,

You guys are very lucky to have that kind of knowledge.

I grew up in England and I don't think as many people have this kind of Pioneer attitude.

Its amazing. I am a scientist at heart and I am all for expanding technology and knowledge but not at the expense of essential survival instinctual knowledge.

I agree it is good to give ourselves more time to contemplate by making menial tasks automated, but I think a lot of our education should be on making sure we know how to do those 'menial' tasks anyway.

I remember helping with the harvest here in China (when its harvest time in the village, everyone helps, doesn't matter their role in the village). It was such a great days work. I mean it was tiring, but there was no stress, no pressure, just great exercise, fresh air and community spirit.

All of us need a release of physical activity, whatever our work. It seems like there should be a way to balance some natural manual labour with scientific pursuit.

Self sufficiency and independence is real power.

[Syn7]

Agreed. Whether it's knowing how the tech you rely on works, or how to get by w/o it. No doubt. It's not even a tough balance. Pretty obvious from my perspective. And I realize I am lucky to have what I had, but I have sought out and added much to this base on my own and through work experience and school. I'm glad I was an electrician before I decided I wanted to go into engineering. I learned a ton about all the trades because I'm curious and ask a ton of questions every opportunity I get. We never had much money, but we always had stuff to do that was productive.

[GoldenBrain]

You got me on the RF jammer. I was always just a really good script kitty analyst but never an elec engineer.

Making pottery is not that difficult. It's the firing that's a *****. Here's a brief tutorial though I'm not going to be able to do it justice with words alone. You really have to sit down with somebody who knows what they are doing and mimic their method. You need to start with a good clay. Any good clay will do but for us to do it the authentic Choctaw way we take a trip to a special place along the Mississippi river and gather clay from the originalChoctaw lands before they were relocated to Oklahoma. You mix the pure clay with finely ground shell or sand so it has a better structure and fires easier. The consistency of the mix is subjective. You basically want it mixed well enough so it blends into the clay and doesn't show through the sides to much when you are molding it into whatever shape. The easiest method is called a pinch pot where you make your bowel or whatever by working it between thumb and fingers and wet it lightly occasionally so you can keep working with it. The consistency when you're working with it should be like silly putty or play dough. When the basic shape is finished you should let it dry a bit and just before it is completely dry you smooth it by scraping the sides and inside with various tools such as thin shells, rocks, metal the thickness of a metal ruler...etc. Different artists use different tools. When the shape is smoothed to your liking then take a very smooth river pebble/rock the size of a US silver dollar and burnish the entire surface inside and out. To do this you just rub the surfaces with the stone in a circular pattern like waxing a car. This makes it kind of shiny and helps it to fire better as well as add color variations. We don't fire our pottery in a kiln but rather in an actual fire built on a flat piece of ground. Lay the pottery around the fire pretty close while it's going and when it burns down to red hot coals move the pottery into the coals and bury it so that coals touch every part of the pottery inside and out. If it's a bowel or other type that has volume then fill the inside with coals as well as burying it. Leave it overnight so that the coals cool completely and dig it out in the morning. It may be cracked or good but that depends on how wet it was when it went into the fire and several other factors. It's a real art but eventually you'll get it.

Here's a link with some pics of pottery being fired. If you want to learn more then do a search for Dr. Ian Thompson who is a good friend of our family. He is the guru of this and many other primitive Choctaw skills and the one I learned from.

http://creativenativeproject.blogspot.com/2011/07/choctaw-pots-rest-of-firing-process.html

[GoldenBrain]

I grew up in England and I don't think as many people have this kind of Pioneer attitude.

I think we are fast loosing this pioneer attitude. People want things the easy way now so we have built up our civilization to capitalize on this mentality. Our economy is mostly driven by envy and greed. Everybody wants what others have and very few people know or remember how to produce. It's mostly the corporations that produce things now and those corporations are made up of people doing compartmentalized jobs towards the common goal of that production but very few of them can do the producing from start to finish themselves.



Self sufficiency and independence is real power.

Indeed!

[Syn7]

I have been putting a lot of time into writing code. Most of my experience is programming microcontrollers and automation. I have been practicing python and already knew the basics of C/C++. Never got too deep in it though. Just not enough time. I learned C++ because most of what I used is based on it. Usually bare bones versions though.

I made a mini forge awhile ago. Never really did much with it. Made some rudimentary blades out of rods, but that's about it. I really just wanted to get the basics. Doing it well takes years. I just wanted to be able to do it should I ever find the need. Just adding to the basic skill set. Maaaan, I say "just" a lot! :D

I would like to give pottery another try. Weaving too. I have a mechanical weaver on my project list, but it's not a priority(it's a really long list), just seemed like a fun build. Nothing fancy, it's not really that hard. Again, just adding to the basic skill set.

"Jack of all trades master of none, often better than a master of one."

[Syn7]

What Does 200 Calories Look Like?


http://www.wisegeek.com/what-does-200-calories-look-like.htm

[GoldenBrain]

Maaaan, I say "just" a lot! :D

Hahaha, at least you don't say alot a lot. :):D;)


Oh, and that page where it shows what 200 calories looks like is really cool. I think most people don't have even the slightest grasp on portion control so having a visual reference might really help.

[Syn7]

Hahaha, at least you don't say alot a lot. :):D;)

Actually I do :o No frontin'!!!

I write "Ofcourse" too.

Old habits die hard.

[GoldenBrain]

Ah well, nobody is perfect. I still have to think about their, they're, there, your, you're...etc. Effing spell check and calculators have nearly ruined me for things like writing on actual paper. I know, it's weird, writing on paper in this day and age.

[Syn7]

Ah well, nobody is perfect. I still have to think about their, they're, there, your, you're...etc. Effing spell check and calculators have nearly ruined me for things like writing on actual paper. I know, it's weird, writing on paper in this day and age.

I'm the same. Not for the same words, but for spelling words I don't use very often. Like how some words use "able" and others use "ible" and I cannot find any rhyme or reason to distinguish one method from the other. Sometimes it's just a crap shoot for me. Highlight then search term is used often!

[SoCo KungFu]

This is what I'm basing my statement on:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2515569/

Heart disease is a disease of diet and lifestyle, cancer is largely a disease of diet and lifestyle, diabetes is a disease of diet and lifestyle.


I believe you are misinterpreting this study. Although its not entirely your fault, the author obfuscates (most likely unintentionally) certain points in the article.

Again, I'm contending with the notion that poor dietary ****genization is the cause of chronic illness and that "good" dietary ****genization is going to fix the matter. I think ****genization in general (ie, Diet XXXX) is bad regardless of form.

In short, I'm contending against your claim that its as you put it, "flour and sugar."


Only 5–10% of all cancer cases can be attributed to genetic defects, whereas the remaining 90–95% have their roots in the environment and lifestyle.

I'm assuming this is where you got this stat from, which you posted earlier in this thread. Important distinctions here. 1) this does not yet speak to your claim that 90% of chronic illnesses are diet and lifestyle. More on that in a bit. 2) The author here is segregating genetic defects due to environment, from simple matters of improper genetic replication, etc (for example, nondisjunction). This is neither a good thing or a bad thing. Its just something that needs to be pointed out because technically what the author later mentions in say, solar radiation damage, is still genetic defect (ex, thymine dimers) which can lead to cancer. Basically, is the matter genetic or environmental? Well, its both, they're linked.

Tangent, but this is a pet peeve of mine. No one seems to be writing in regards to the intersection between constraints. A lot of these things, are about interactive effects. To use an example from ecology...
Chytrid fungus is a pathogen that is decimating world amphibian populations. No one seems to know why this is so infectious. Its suspected, however, that its the cumulative effects of multiple issues. Amphibians as you probably know, spend the beginning of their life cycle, in most cases, in an aquatic environment. Chytrid particularly hits species which lay eggs in standing pools of water. Its suspected that increased global temperatures due to climate change have caused an increase in drying of such pools. This isn't really a contentious matter, its easily documented. This reduces the depth of the pools remaining. Decreased depth means increased UV exposure to the eggs, which has negative effects on the immune system. This increases susceptibility to Chytrid. Disease is more about the interface between multiple factors than it is about parsing out A or B.


The evidence indicates that of all cancer-related deaths, almost 25–30% are due to tobacco, as many as 30–35% are linked to diet, about 15–20% are due to infections, and the remaining percentage are due to other factors like radiation, stress, physical activity, environmental pollutants etc.

This quote is inaccurate. First off, the author is talking about cancer mortality, not incidence rate. Furthermore, it is directly contradicted later in the paper, as shown below...


Most carcinogens that are ingested, such as nitrates, nitrosamines, pesticides, and dioxins, come from food or food additives or from cooking.


Environmental pollution has been linked to various cancers (Fig. 7). It includes outdoor air pollution by carbon particles associated with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs); indoor air pollution by environmental tobacco smoke, formaldehyde, and volatile organic compounds such as benzene and 1,3-butadiene (which may particularly affect children); food pollution by food additives and by carcinogenic contaminants such as nitrates, pesticides, dioxins, and other organochlorines; carcinogenic metals and metalloids; pharmaceutical medicines; and cosmetics (The following popper user interface control may not be accessible. Tab to the next button to revert the control to an accessible version.Destroy user interface control64)

The author is first claiming diet is approx 30% responsible for cancer mortality (again not incidence) but now we see that they are double dipping in their data presentation. The author is attempting to both include environmental carcinogens in food prep and food production. Simply, its misrepresentation to say that carcinogens related to pest control and soil intensification are "dietary" issues in the same sense of processed sugars, etc.

The article goes on about other factors, again minimizing their effect. And again, see my comment above on the interactive effects of multiple factors.

Incidentally, I don't disagree with the overall aim of the article...

Therefore, cancer prevention requires smoking cessation, increased ingestion of fruits and vegetables, moderate use of alcohol, caloric restriction, exercise, avoidance of direct exposure to sunlight, minimal meat consumption, use of whole grains, use of vaccinations, and regular check-ups.

I just can't stand when people try to simplify complex systematic issues into sound bites.

[SoCo KungFu]

Sustainable Farm Practices Improve Third World Food Production



http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/01/060123163315.htm




Awesome report, but the truth be known, and as you know Kymus, most of us out here who use sustainable farm methods already knew this. I'm am happy to see this info being shared with the folks who haven't discovered the realz yet. It doesn't surprise me that many people out there want to be hand fed GMO seeds since they want to be hand fed everything else in their lives, but maybe studies like this can sway them over to the sustainable organic side.

This article was based on the actual publication found here:

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/es051670d

And the actual publication itself speaks nothing to distinguishing GMO from non GMO methods. In fact, the word genetic occurs only once in the entire pub.


Agricultural sustainability does not, therefore, mean ruling out
any technologies or practices on ideological grounds (e.g.,
genetically modified crop, organic practice)sprovided they
improve productivity for farmers, and do not harm the
environment

They are simply attempting to present an inclusive picture utilizing a multi faceted approach to sustainable ag. This really doesn't speak anything to the GMO vs non GMO debate as they are including such technology with other non GMO sustainment practices.

[GoldenBrain]

Well there you go SoCo, trying to interject reason and scientific mumbo-jizmo into this discussion. Just kidding! ;) Seriously, your opinion is well received and since I know you actually worked in the field of cancer research, though I don't know exactly what you do, it does add weight to your words.

I do have a few questions for you. Do you think there is a link to a persons PH, wether alkaline or acidic, and the development of cancer? I've heard that eating to many foods with high acidity can lead to the development of cancer or at least lead to the conditions which help to create the preferred environment for cancer to live in. Do you think sugar in the form of fruit, processed or whatever feeds cancer cells? Do you have an opinion on what kind of diet is recommended to keep a more alkaline PH and avoid these sugars or is this all bunk? These are serious questions and not at all meant to antagonize or draw you out into some sort of new age debate on these issues.

Thanks!!!

[SoCo KungFu]

Well there you go SoCo, trying to interject reason and scientific mumbo-jizmo into this discussion. Just kidding! ;) Seriously, your opinion is well received and since I know you actually worked in the field of cancer research, though I don't know exactly what you do, it does add weight to your words.

I do have a few questions for you. Do you think there is a link to a persons PH, wether alkaline or acidic, and the development of cancer? I've heard that eating to many foods with high acidity can lead to the development of cancer or at least lead to the conditions which help to create the preferred environment for cancer to live in. Do you think sugar in the form of fruit, processed or whatever feeds cancer cells? Do you have an opinion on what kind of diet is recommended to keep a more alkaline PH and avoid these sugars or is this all bunk? These are serious questions and not at all meant to antagonize or draw you out into some sort of new age debate on these issues.

Thanks!!!

To sum up all the above. No

To be more detailed, the pH of what you eat means next to nothing in terms of health for 99% of the population. There are exceptions to this, but pretty much, its bunk.

What we're really talking about is compartmentalization. Your body is not a continuous space. Its a mesh of segregated tissues comprising segregated systems. When you eat, the pH of your stomach environment drops to approximately 2-3. There is absolutely nothing you could possibly eat that would even compare to that high of acidity. Well, nothing that you'd survive. I personally don't make a habit of drinking battery acid.

So, EVERYTHING you eat is instantly acidified. This is required because the proteases in your gastric juice that are responsible for breaking down food are optimized to this pH level. In fact, they would not function otherwise. So that's the first knock right there. If "alkaline" food actually made a difference, you'd not be able to digest it.

Then, once you stomach empties the contents into the intestine, pancreatic secretions neutralize the pH, rendering it safe to travel the GI tract.

These pH diet people try to make these claims that you can do urine tests and that's somehow indicative of blood pH. Because really that's what they're interested in, blood pH.

1) Urine pH is absolutely irrelevant to blood pH. Urine pH is a matter of kidney function (more on this in a minute).

2) Blood pH is so tightly controlled there is virtually nothing a healthy person can do to throw it out in any dangerous way. Blood pH is regulated by your kidneys through filtration, by the blood acid/base buffer system, and more actively via respiration. Hemoglobin binds 3 molecules; oxygen, hydrogen and BPG (2,3-bisphosphoglyceric acid). CO2 actually doesn't bind to Hb but rather is transported in plasma as HCO3-. BPG is not really related to this discussion but is a molecule that binds to Hb in low oxygen environments and decreases affinity of O2 to Hb (thus increasing O2 in the tissues). Think, mountain climbing or free diving without an oxygen tank.

So Hb works in 2 states. This is based on the molecular arrangement of Hb and is related to O2 binding. T state is deoxygenated Hb, R state is oxygenated. T state has low O2 affinity, R state is high. The way Hb works, is that 1 heme can bind 4 oxygen molecules. Once that first is bound, the Hb molecule changes is conformation (shape) from T, to R. This R configuration (R=Relaxed) opens up the 3 subsequent binding sites and those empty spaces bind very rapidly. Thus the R state's high affinity.

This is linked with pH; remember I said the other molecule that binds to Hb is hydrogen, specifically H+ ions. Which is what pH actually is, a measure of H+ ion concentration. The lower the pH, the more the ions. H+ binding to Hb favors a T state. Thus, in lower pH (meaning higher H+), less O2 binds to Hb. This means more O2 is in the tissues. I realize this might be confusing, but think of it like this. When you are working out, you're producing a bunch of CO2 and H+ ions. You also are using up a lot of O2 and thus, need that oxygen in the organs, its not doing you any good stuck in the blood.

The opposite is true when Oxygen is in high supply. More oxygen is bound up in the Hb, leaving less space for H+ to bind.

So, a couple things should be apparent to you at this point. One, notice how respiratory rate seems to be implicated in blood pH? 2nd, notice this whole time I've been talking about bound molecules and Hb? The blood system as a whole, is consistent. These molecules are there, regardless. The changes are based on whether at one point they're bound vs unbound. So the pH is relatively constant within a very narrow range of constraints. This is vitally important because notice how much an impact H+ ions have on your body's ability to carry oxygen, its literally life or death. So ANY changes in blood pH can become VERY VERY bad. But yet we live everyday problem free.

With regards to respiration, you can (for a very short time period) change your blood pH. Hold your breath for about 20 seconds. During that time the pH is being altered (and quickly corrected for). Opposite holds true as well. When people that are hyperventilating black out, what is actually happening is their body is losing too much CO2 and the pH is being altered (become more alkaline). When they pass out and breathing slows down, their body automatically corrects itself. So not only is it tightly controlled, its so tightly controlled your body does it when you're not even conscious.

I did mention exceptions to this. Remember I said kidneys also control pH? This is long term regulation. Now people suffering from a depreciated kidney function very much can have adverse effects based on what they eat. They pretty much have adverse effects based on anything though. Renal failure is very serious business.

As for cancer. There's been stuff shown that cancer cells "favor" an acidic environment in culture. And there's been stuff showing that altering the pH to a more alkaline level can kill the cells, in culture. Here's the problem. It kills everything. This is all in culture mind you. This mechanism, for reasons I've already explained make absolutely no difference in vivo because there's nothing we can do to instantly turn someones body "alkaline."

So with regards to diet, I don't recommend any diet based on pH. I don't think its a relevant consideration.

Summary: Blood pH is so tightly controlled that this is an irrelevant matter for any healthy individual. If you're up on chemistry, at least enough to understand le Chatelier's principle of chemical equilibrium, this is the blood pH buffer equation that basically summarizes what I just said:

H+(aq) + HCO3-(aq) <--> H2CO3(aq) <--> H2O (l) + CO2(g)

Anytime you push the equation one way, so long as it doesn't exceed the constraints of the buffer system, your body will alter respiration and such to correct back toward equilibrium.

Just my take on this. I'm not an expert, I've just worked in a lab trying to kill the stuff. Incidentally, the mechanism I was looking into was a means of (in part) spilling a cell's acidic contents in the lysosome, into the cytoplasm. Basically, killing a cancer cell with its own "stomach acid", so to speak. Or rather, using this as an instigator for apoptotic cell death.

[SoCo KungFu]

FYI, if you're not familiar with le Chatelier's Principle; google it and learn. That's just really good knowledge to have. 2nd to learning what the hell and electron actually is, that's probably the next thing everyone should know about chemistry for just a day to day real world impact. Its involved in everything from your blood, to voltaic reactions.

Le Chatelier's principle is the reason you can pour water into a car battery in a pinch to get it to crank up.

[Syn7]

FYI, if you're not familiar with le Chatelier's Principle; google it and learn. That's just really good knowledge to have. 2nd to learning what the hell and electron actually is, that's probably the next thing everyone should know about chemistry for just a day to day real world impact. Its involved in everything from your blood, to voltaic reactions.

Le Chatelier's principle is the reason you can pour water into a car battery in a pinch to get it to crank up.

Yay... back to something I actually understand!!! :o

The pH post was way above my paygrade.

[Syn7]

Speaking of chemistry. It took me a minute to figure out why it was funny, but when it clicked for me I laughed for like 5 minutes. It's my 12 year old sense of humour kicking in.

http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/webdr06/2013/6/18/10/enhanced-buzz-17742-1371566895-2.jpg

[GoldenBrain]

Thank you SoCo! That was extremely educational, enlightening in fact. I love science but unfortunately never studied chemistry beyond the very basics. I look forward to reading up on Le Chatelier's principle.

[Kymus]

Goldenbrain, I saw this (http://www.instituteofurbanecology.org/2013/07/focus-on-food-ep-34-the-ethical-bbq/) and thought you'd like it.

It seems to discuss the "perfect BBQ", going from sustainable farming to how and why that produces healthy food.

[GoldenBrain]

Thanks Kymus! I just briefly returned to my computer so I'll have to check it out later this evening. There appear to be a bunch of other interesting topics as well.

[Syn7]

How do you guys feel about american beef? You like the taste? Have you had beef elsewhere that had a drastically different taste and/or texture?


Anyone here have a successful urban window farm?

[SoCo KungFu]

How do you guys feel about american beef? You like the taste? Have you had beef elsewhere that had a drastically different taste and/or texture?


Anyone here have a successful urban window farm?

McDonald's "beef" in Japan tasted almost like restaurant beef here in the US.

I avoid beef in general for the most part, though, regardless of origin. Kuru is a disease that had about a 20-30 year incubation period in cannibals of Papua NG. Kuru also shows that spongiform encephalopathy is a transmittable disease. I'm not convinced that Bovine SE is not transmittable. If you think about it, the British mad cow scare was only about 23 years ago. We could just now be entering the presentation stages of SE for those people. And I'm not convinced that we destroyed it all in the states either. We've had no recent epidemics, but prions can sustain in the soil for a very long time. We may have lowered the concentration of its presence to a degree where the disease doesn't present in slaughter bound cows in their lifetime, but we may have still been consuming them in small doses which could add up over our lifetimes.

But then, I'm already supposedly a potential target for Alzheimer's. It hit my grandmother and it patterns to skip generations. Alzheimer's is thought to be linked to amyloid fibers. Amyloid fibers are the precursors to prions. So, its not confirmed but its enough that anyone can connect the dots to the potential links.

[GoldenBrain]

How do you guys feel about american beef? You like the taste? Have you had beef elsewhere that had a drastically different taste and/or texture?


Anyone here have a successful urban window farm?

I don't eat beef anymore but when I did I had no problem with American beef. I preferred free range grass fed Black Angus or the tougher but very tasty TX Long Horn. I stick to chicken, turkey and fish now or other wild birds that I hunt, but mostly just because I digest those types of meat better than beef.

Other than orchids, aloe and some other common house plants I've not had much exposure to window farming, though I'd love to learn more about it. I believe you mentioned in past posts that you have done a bit of this type of farming, so how did it go for you?

[Syn7]

McDonald's "beef" in Japan tasted almost like restaurant beef here in the US.

So better then? I'll be the first to admit, I have a very unsophisticated palate(sp?). I go out and have a 60 dollar meal and I walk away thinking "rice and a lil sauce would have done it for me". Not that I don't enjoy unique flavours and new tastes, just that I don't live for it and in the end, I couldn't really care less. I'm far more concerned with how it makes me feel. I noticed that the older I get the less dairy I can eat. It just doesn't sit well a few hours later anymore.


I don't eat beef anymore but when I did I had no problem with American beef. I preferred free range grass fed Black Angus or the tougher but very tasty TX Long Horn. I stick to chicken, turkey and fish now or other wild birds that I hunt, but mostly just because I digest those types of meat better than beef.

Other than orchids, aloe and some other common house plants I've not had much exposure to window farming, though I'd love to learn more about it. I believe you mentioned in past posts that you have done a bit of this type of farming, so how did it go for you?


I am not a big beef eater. But then I'm not a big meat eater either. I was a veggie for like 15 years and only a couple years ago started eating meat again. And even then, it was just to prove a point. Long story. I could be veg again and be fine with it.


Window farming. I have limited experience with this in my own home. I built a window farm for a friend. I used an ATmega 328p microcontroller to make a watering system, temp/humidity sensors and sunlight control. Basically automatic blinds with a servo. Nothing too fancy. Just so they didn't have to worry about it before work, it just opened and closed on it's own during the day/night hours. I just programmed in the almanac info for dusk and dawn. The actual planters were custom boxes, long and skinny. Stacked on top of each other and spaced with cable. So basically a hanging planter. A fun day project. The yield was pretty good for what it was. Mostly spices and stuff.

Myself, I had a nice deck awhile ago and I just used planters from the store and did it all by hand. Turned out ok. I would like to go extreme on it, but you know... just haven't gotten around to it. I have some ideas for making more space, staggering the planters to allow more stacks and stuff like that. Someday. Maybe when I move back to the city. I have a big yard right now, so it's not really an issue. I can plant anything I want. Within reason, of course.

I imagine you have all the space you need. Window farming is for people who live in cubicles. :D

I am interested in urban farming, but for now it's just intellectual curiosity and fact gathering to give me options later. I like to think ahead like that. ;)

[GoldenBrain]

I go out and have a 60 dollar meal and I walk away thinking "rice and a lil sauce would have done it for me".

I often feel this way. Eat to live, not live to eat is the way I roll.:cool:



I imagine you have all the space you need.


Indeed. It's a pretty sweet piece of land for sure. I've tried the container gardening on the deck thing and it was fun and fairly productive, but what I've learned is that you just can't beat planting directly in the ground. The deeper the roots can go the bigger and more productive the plants will be. I'd probably use aquaponics for window farming if I were living somewhere without a yard. With aquaponics you get the added benefit of free fertilizer from the fish, filtration from the plants and great fish to eat along with the produce. If you raise tilapia which are plant eaters then you can grow duckweed and spirulina algae in a separate tank to feed your fish. Duckweed and spirulina are also good nutrition for humans and taste great in smoothies. Also, tilapia will be ready to harvest in only 8 months from hatching. The cool thing about this type of farming is that other than the initial setup costs for equipment, fish and seeds, all you really need to pay for is water and electricity and if you use a solar powered pump then you're just paying for the water.

[GoldenBrain]

Anyone here have a successful urban window farm?

Alrighty Syn, you really got me interested in this concept, not because I lack the space, but because it's just a really great idea and I wanted to learn more about it, so I've been searching the interwebs and ran across this site. http://our.windowfarms.org This site is a treasure trove of info on this type of farming. Apparently there are over 40,000 users on this site sharing ideas about how to improve window farming.

[Syn7]

Alrighty Syn, you really got me interested in this concept, not because I lack the space, but because it's just a really great idea and I wanted to learn more about it, so I've been searching the interwebs and ran across this site. http://our.windowfarms.org This site is a treasure trove of info on this type of farming. Apparently there are over 40,000 users on this site sharing ideas about how to improve window farming.

Yeah, I saw that awhile ago. Bookmarked it and promptly forgot :D

Story of my life in this oversaturated world of info madness. ;)


What I like about window farming and urban farming in general is that it let's us stay in touch, somewhat, with our agrarian roots in this ever changing overpopulated world. Even though apartments are starting to look like the reference section at your local university library, you can still produce your own food. To an extent, anyways.

Ideally I would like to see people heat their homes with their indoor greenhouses. Just walk into the kitchen and yank some fruit off the wall. :D

I've seen some pretty innovative versions of this idea. Hopefully it catches on.

[Syn7]

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-VrSELC6bjWQ/UdqwbmNGbhI/AAAAAAAAAEc/n7I5PStzSxg/w506-h563-o/science%2Bnews%2Bcycle.gif