[i] [oracle] Blue Garlic
-Wee Rocket
placed the usual various herbs and seasonings on top of it, to drip down
and season it, including garlic bits from a garlic press. When she took
the chicken out of the oven, the garlic (and only the garlic) had turned
blue.
She asked my advice. I said the ingredients cost less than ten bucks;
dump it in the garbage; don't gamble with your health.
Then I thought to ask you afpeople if anything like that had ever
happened in your kitchen.
-Rock http://www.rockyfrisco.com
--
The World's Best Free News Service: http://www.rationalreview.com/
Arthur Hagen
> Nancy just mentioned that she had laid out a chicken in the oven and
> placed the usual various herbs and seasonings on top of it, to drip
> down and season it, including garlic bits from a garlic press. When
> she took the chicken out of the oven, the garlic (and only the
> garlic) had turned blue.
>
> She asked my advice. I said the ingredients cost less than ten bucks;
> dump it in the garbage; don't gamble with your health.
>
> Then I thought to ask you afpeople if anything like that had ever
> happened in your kitchen.
Three possibilities, or combinations thereof:
1: She used a copper pan, which is a no-no for sulphur rich food like eggs
or garlic. Or, she rinsed the garlic under water (another no-no), and the
copper in the water stained it. Copper sulphate is azure in colour.
2: She used vinegar on the chicken, and the garlic was not ripe white but
slightly green. The anthocyanine reacts with the acid, resulting a metallic
blue colour. This is quite common, and Yet Another Reason why vinegar
should be banned from the kitchen and only used on the table.
3: She used table salt with iodine, another no-no for cooking, as it may
turn starch rich food purplish blue.
In any case, it was safe to eat.
Regards,
--
*Art
Graycat
>Nancy just mentioned that she had laid out a chicken in the oven and
>placed the usual various herbs and seasonings on top of it, to drip down
>and season it, including garlic bits from a garlic press. When she took
>the chicken out of the oven, the garlic (and only the garlic) had turned
>blue.
>
>She asked my advice. I said the ingredients cost less than ten bucks;
>dump it in the garbage; don't gamble with your health.
>
>Then I thought to ask you afpeople if anything like that had ever
>happened in your kitchen.
I've had garlic tun a creepy green - anyone know why that might
happen?
--
Elin
The world makes perfect sense, as a black comedy
Hendrik Schober
> [...]
> I've had garlic tun a creepy green - anyone know why that might
> happen?
Next-door neighbor played with his time machine?
Scho-I-get-my-coat-bi
--
Spam...@gmx.de is never read
I'm HSchober at gmx dot org
"My hope is that if more people start reading books,
the world will become a better place."
froarulv in afp
Nigel Stapley
-Wee Rocket
> -Wee Rocket <rockn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Nancy just mentioned that she had laid out a chicken in the oven and
>> placed the usual various herbs and seasonings on top of it, to drip down
>> and season it, including garlic bits from a garlic press. When she took
>> the chicken out of the oven, the garlic (and only the garlic) had turned
>> blue.
>>
>> She asked my advice. I said the ingredients cost less than ten bucks;
>> dump it in the garbage; don't gamble with your health.
>>
>> Then I thought to ask you afpeople if anything like that had ever
>> happened in your kitchen.
>
> happen?
Here's a picture of the actual chicken part, with the bluegreen garlic
bits. They are flat from being kept overnight in a ziploc bag in the
freezer, also the source of the white stuff, which is frost. The yellow
thingie is a small chunk of lemon.
http://www.rockyfrisco.com/bluegreengarlic.jpg
-Wee Rocket
> -Wee Rocket <rockn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Nancy just mentioned that she had laid out a chicken in the oven and
>> placed the usual various herbs and seasonings on top of it, to drip down
>> and season it, including garlic bits from a garlic press. When she took
>> the chicken out of the oven, the garlic (and only the garlic) had turned
>> blue.
>>
>> She asked my advice. I said the ingredients cost less than ten bucks;
>> dump it in the garbage; don't gamble with your health.
>>
>> Then I thought to ask you afpeople if anything like that had ever
>> happened in your kitchen.
>
> happen?
Here's a picture of the actual chicken part, with the bluegreen garlic
bits. They are flat from being kept overnight in a ziploc bag in the
freezer, also the source of the white stuff, which is frost. The yellow
thingie is a small chunk of lemon.
http://www.rockyfrisco.com/bluegreengarlic.jpg
-Rock http://www.rockyfrisco.com
Carol Hague
> Here's a picture of the actual chicken part, with the bluegreen garlic
> bits. They are flat from being kept overnight in a ziploc bag in the
> freezer, also the source of the white stuff, which is frost. The yellow
> thingie is a small chunk of lemon.
>
> http://www.rockyfrisco.com/bluegreengarlic.jpg
Eek! That doesn't look like a healthy colour for garlic.
But apparently I'm wrong, because google turned this up from :-
http://whatscookingamerica.net/Q-A/bluegarlic.htm
"Garlic contains sulfur compounds which can react with copper to form
copper sulfate, a blue or blue-green compound. The amount of copper
needed for this reaction is very small and is frequently found in normal
water supplies. Raw garlic contains an enzyme that if not inactivated by
heating reacts with sulfur (in the garlic) and copper (from water or
utensils) to form blue copper sulfate. The garlic is still safe to eat.
If it is picked before it is fully mature and hasn't been properly dried
it can turn and iridescent blue or green color when in the presence of
acid."
Which got me wondering about the lemon in the picture....
It goes on to say:-
"A reaction between garlic's natural sulfur content and any copper in
the water or in the iron, tin or aluminum cooking utensils can sometimes
change the color of garlic.
Garlic will also turn green (develop chlorophyll) if exposed to an
temperature change or is exposed to sunlight. Some people say it can be
stored for 32 days at or above 70 - 80° F to prevent greening (but I'm
not yet sure that is true).
Other reasons to cause garlic to turn blue or green:
Are you using table salt instead of canning salt? That can cause
the garlic to turn blue or green. Table salt contains iodine, which
discolors whatever you're pickling. Use kosher or pickling salt.
Different varieties or growing conditions can actually produce
garlic with an excess natural bluish/green pigmentation made more
visible after pickling
Don't worry, greenish-blue color changes aren't harmful and your garlic
is still safe to eat. (unless you see other signs of spoilage). "
So I've learned something today :-)
--
Carol
Some people are like slinkies - they don't really
have a purpose, but they still bring a smile to your
face when you push them down the stairs (Anon)
Arthur Hagen
>
> Here's a picture of the actual chicken part, with the bluegreen garlic
> bits. They are flat from being kept overnight in a ziploc bag in the
> freezer, also the source of the white stuff, which is frost. The
> yellow thingie is a small chunk of lemon.
>
> http://www.rockyfrisco.com/bluegreengarlic.jpg
Judging by those pictures, I'd say it's most likely due to using vinegar or
lemon and not completely ripe garlic (and possibly from copper contamination
too). It's a known and common phenomenon.
Regards,
--
*Art
-Wee Rocket
Me too! I love to cook and I also love garlic, so there's a good chance
I will (from now on) know to not throw out one of my many strange
concoctions because of colourful garlic.
Paul Harman
news:1ht4sqc.g2uzksjhvvz0N%ca...@wrhpv.com...
> "Garlic contains sulfur compounds which can react with copper to form
> copper sulfate, a blue or blue-green compound. The amount of copper
> needed for this reaction is very small and is frequently found in normal
> water supplies. Raw garlic contains an enzyme that if not inactivated by
> heating reacts with sulfur (in the garlic) and copper (from water or
> utensils) to form blue copper sulfate. The garlic is still safe to eat.
How odd. They always taught us in Chemistry class that Copper Sulphate was
poisonous.
Paul
Carol Hague
Maybe not to USAnians? :-)
But further googling says you're right :-
http://physchem.ox.ac.uk/MSDS/CO/copper_II_sulfate.html
"Harmful by inhalation or ingestion. Dust may ulcerate membranes.
Prolonged exposure may cause dermatitis. Possible irritant. No UK
exposure limit (as at 13.8.01)"
Maybe the quantities in garlic are so small as to be neglible? Or at
least the person on that cooking site thinks they are?
Lesley Weston
So it is, which made me wonder too; all copper salts, which do tend to be
shades of blue and green, are poisonous. Perhaps it's blue from one of the
other possible causes, but it might be a good idea to check the water supply
and other sources of possible copper contamination.
--
Lesley Weston.
Brightly_coloured_blob is real, but I don't often check even the few bits
that get through Yahoo's filters. To reach me, use leswes att shaw dott ca,
changing spelling and spacing as required.
James Mitchelhill
> in article 52tuqgF...@mid.individual.net, Paul Harman at
> chatt...@doctorwhowebguide.net wrote on 07/02/2007 4:25 AM:
>
>> How odd. They always taught us in Chemistry class that Copper Sulphate was
>> poisonous.
>
> So it is, which made me wonder too; all copper salts, which do tend to be
> shades of blue and green, are poisonous. Perhaps it's blue from one of the
> other possible causes, but it might be a good idea to check the water supply
> and other sources of possible copper contamination.
Copper Sulphate seems to be used as a food preservative sometimes. It even
has its own E Number (E519). It seems to be only generally used in pet
foods, though.
According to Wikipedia, 30g of it can be lethal. But I suspect the very
small amounts likely to be found in blue garlic are enough to do anyone any
harm.
--
James Mitchelhill
ja...@disorderfeed.net
http://disorderfeed.net
Arthur Hagen
>
> Copper Sulphate seems to be used as a food preservative sometimes. It
> even has its own E Number (E519). It seems to be only generally used
> in pet foods, though.
>
> According to Wikipedia, 30g of it can be lethal. But I suspect the
> very small amounts likely to be found in blue garlic are enough to do
> anyone any harm.
I trust you mean "are *not* enough"?
Yeah, 30 g is a LOT of copper sulphate. I'm quite certain we eat plenty of
stuff in tiny doses that would kill us if we downed several grams. Heck,
Vitamin A fits that description too. :-)
Regards,
--
*Art
SeekUp
"Paul Harman" <chatt...@doctorwhowebguide.net> wrote
> How odd. They always taught us in Chemistry class that Copper Sulphate was
> poisonous.
Isn't copper sulphate the "blue stone" that is supposedly slipped into the
food and drink of military personnel to, um, "control their urges"?
guy
> "Paul Harman" <chatter...@doctorwhowebguide.net> wrote
Always thought that was a Bromide, not sure of what though
guy
James Mitchelhill
> James Mitchelhill <ja...@disorderfeed.net> wrote:
>>
>> Copper Sulphate seems to be used as a food preservative sometimes. It
>> even has its own E Number (E519). It seems to be only generally used
>> in pet foods, though.
>>
>> According to Wikipedia, 30g of it can be lethal. But I suspect the
>> very small amounts likely to be found in blue garlic are enough to do
>> anyone any harm.
>
> I trust you mean "are *not* enough"?
That is indeed what I meant. Damn those three letters.
> Yeah, 30 g is a LOT of copper sulphate. I'm quite certain we eat plenty of
> stuff in tiny doses that would kill us if we downed several grams. Heck,
> Vitamin A fits that description too. :-)
Pretty much everything is poisonous in large enough amounts, especially
dihydrogen monoxide. It can be instructive on a dull afternoon to work out
how close we are to poisoning by various substances that we consume as a
matter of course.
For example, the average person consumes about 200mg of caffeine a day. 15g
of caffeine is fairly likely to be lethal, so most people consume about
1/75th of a lethal dose every day. (I suspect that computer programmers
might be a bit closer to the lethal dose with this one.)
Or, paracetemol - that's APAP or acetaminophen to non UK people. The
average adult dose is 1g. The average lethal dose is about 350mg/kg, or 26g
for a roughly average person. So we're about 1/26th away from death by
paracetemol overdose every time we take one for a headache or whatever.
There's not too much information about regarding the potential lethality of
the aforementioned dihydrogen monoxide, but if we go by Wikipedia's
estimation that three litres consumed all at once is potentially fatal, and
consider that a reasonble glass of water is about half a pint, then we
regularly consume about 1/12th of the lethal dose of the stuff.
In conclusion then, we should obviously all be eating caffeine pills
instead of drinking water.
Lesley Weston
I'm assuming that you intended to put a "not" in there, and replying
accordingly. It seems like a good idea to avoid whatever poisons one can,
even in small amounts. If it's simply unavoidable then the trick is not to
worry about it, but where there's a choice one might as well be careful. A
small amount of copper is essential to humans and we do have a mechanism for
excreting any excess - up to a point; after that point it becomes a problem.
Lesley Weston
ja...@disorderfeed.net wrote on 08/02/2007 6:54 AM:
<snip>
> There's not too much information about regarding the potential lethality of
> the aforementioned dihydrogen monoxide, but if we go by Wikipedia's
> estimation that three litres consumed all at once is potentially fatal, and
> consider that a reasonble glass of water is about half a pint, then we
> regularly consume about 1/12th of the lethal dose of the stuff.
There was a News story last week about a woman who died because she had
entered a competition sponsored by a radio station to see who could drink
the most water in the shortest time. They didn't say how much she drank or
whether she won.
James Mitchelhill
> in article 5kjyaaq3xvds.1ogcxq5p5qlqd$.d...@40tude.net, James Mitchelhill at
> ja...@disorderfeed.net wrote on 08/02/2007 6:54 AM:
>
>
> <snip>
>
>> There's not too much information about regarding the potential lethality of
>> the aforementioned dihydrogen monoxide, but if we go by Wikipedia's
>> estimation that three litres consumed all at once is potentially fatal, and
>> consider that a reasonble glass of water is about half a pint, then we
>> regularly consume about 1/12th of the lethal dose of the stuff.
>
> There was a News story last week about a woman who died because she had
> entered a competition sponsored by a radio station to see who could drink
> the most water in the shortest time. They didn't say how much she drank or
> whether she won.
Yup, Jennifer Strange, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Strange>, who
competed in "Hold your wee for a Wii". She finished in second place and
probably consumed around 2 gallons (or 7.5 liters).
Alec Cawley
> On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 17:35:30 GMT, Lesley Weston wrote:
>
>> in article 52tuqgF...@mid.individual.net, Paul Harman at
>> chatt...@doctorwhowebguide.net wrote on 07/02/2007 4:25 AM:
>>
>>> How odd. They always taught us in Chemistry class that Copper Sulphate was
>>> poisonous.
>> So it is, which made me wonder too; all copper salts, which do tend to be
>> shades of blue and green, are poisonous. Perhaps it's blue from one of the
>> other possible causes, but it might be a good idea to check the water supply
>> and other sources of possible copper contamination.
>
> Copper Sulphate seems to be used as a food preservative sometimes. It even
> has its own E Number (E519). It seems to be only generally used in pet
> foods, though.
It used to be widely sprayed on grapes as a fungicide. I don't know if
it still is.
Hurricane Shoals
I think it's usually saltpeter [1], at least in the US, which is
claimed to be the anaphrodisiac of choice for the military and other
males institutions.
[1] potassium nitrate or sodium nitrate, though it is the former
falsely claimed to control male urges [2]
[2] Don't you think the idea of saltpeter is funny? As if it were a
preservative until they needed it again?
HS
Arthur Hagen
> I'm assuming that you intended to put a "not" in there, and replying
> accordingly. It seems like a good idea to avoid whatever poisons one can,
> even in small amounts. If it's simply unavoidable then the trick is not to
> worry about it, but where there's a choice one might as well be careful. A
> small amount of copper is essential to humans and we do have a mechanism for
> excreting any excess - up to a point; after that point it becomes a problem.
And there you've nailed the dilemma -- what is a poison in one dose
might be a necessity in another dosage. So you can't blindly avoid it
because it's poisonous, because your body might need small amounts.
Like with most trace metals and several of the vitamins.
Our liver and other waste disposal systems are remarkably good at
getting rid of what we don't need, as long as you don't seriously overdo
it. Which is why we can take vitamin tablets without worrying too much.
A small amount of poisonous salts of copper, cadmium, selenium, boron,
aluminium, mercury, lead and even a little of the relatively potent
poison called Vitamin A won't hurt you, because the body has means to
get rid of the excess and keep what it needs, as long as you don't
totally overwhelm the system.
Regards,
--
*Art
-Wee Rocket
Thought that was potassium nitrate: "saltpeter."
Pudde Fjord
The "dose" in this case is only valid if you consume it in a short time,
without giving the body time to excrete the surplus.
However, there's been another case where a woman literally drowned
herself from the inside, by drinking large amounts of water over an
extended period of time. She was convinced she had cancer (she had not)
and that drinking a *lot* would cure it.
I didn't find a reference to that case, and the book I read about it is
probably stashed away somwhere. This was listed as the only recorded
case of "drinking themself to death".
Pudde.
James Mitchelhill
> James Mitchelhill wrote:
<snip>
>> There's not too much information about regarding the potential lethality of
>> the aforementioned dihydrogen monoxide, but if we go by Wikipedia's
>> estimation that three litres consumed all at once is potentially fatal, and
>> consider that a reasonble glass of water is about half a pint, then we
>> regularly consume about 1/12th of the lethal dose of the stuff.
>>
>> In conclusion then, we should obviously all be eating caffeine pills
>> instead of drinking water.
>>
>
> The "dose" in this case is only valid if you consume it in a short time,
> without giving the body time to excrete the surplus.
Um. That's what 'dose' means.
> However, there's been another case where a woman literally drowned
> herself from the inside, by drinking large amounts of water over an
> extended period of time. She was convinced she had cancer (she had not)
> and that drinking a *lot* would cure it.
>
> I didn't find a reference to that case, and the book I read about it is
> probably stashed away somwhere. This was listed as the only recorded
> case of "drinking themself to death".
Good lord, no. Water intoxication fatalities are, while rare, not hugely
uncommon. Often they're compounded by other diseases or environmental
stress, but otherwise healthy people can die from drinking too much water.
A large number of the deaths associated with ecstasy seem to be a result of
water intoxication. The most famous of these was Leah Betts, whose death I
was lied to about while I was in school. She was worried about not drinking
enough water, due to the harm reduction information about at the time,
which was designed for people who were at raves. She was at home and drank
about 7 litres in an hour and a half. She died from the effects of water
intoxication.
Lesley Weston
So she didn't even win? That seems particularly cruel.
Winterbay
However cadmium is not secreted from the body but accumulates in the
kidneys due to it fitting very nicely in the active pumps that control
some of the body's balances and mercury also has a tendency to
accumulate if received in wrong form...
So basically it is lucky that Cd is not very toxic since otherwise we
would probably die from kidney failure rather quickly.
/Winterbay
Arthur Hagen
> in article 1x4ekqw6msg2k$.pp41fisa...@40tude.net, James Mitchelhill at
> ja...@disorderfeed.net wrote on 08/02/2007 9:56 AM:
> > Yup, Jennifer Strange, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Strange>, who
> > competed in "Hold your wee for a Wii". She finished in second place and
> > probably consumed around 2 gallons (or 7.5 liters).
>
> So she didn't even win? That seems particularly cruel.
She also missed getting a Darwin Award, having procreated multiple times
before the incident.
Regards,
--
*Art
Arthur Hagen
I don't think it's luck, but evolution. If cadmium had been more toxic,
our kidneys would have been better at removing it.
Regards,
--
*Art
Winterbay
Luck or evolution it is still a bit odd that the kidney instead of
removing Cd from the bloodstream and from the body it accumulates it and
in doing so kills itself slowly...
/winterbay
Len Oil
> Luck or evolution it is still a bit odd that the kidney instead of
> removing Cd from the bloodstream and from the body it accumulates it and
> in doing so kills itself slowly...
Given that the simplest term of the word "poison" is "something that
prevents a catalyst (or enzyme?) from performing properly", isn't
"getting jammed in the machinery of life" technically 'poisoning' after all?
Now, if it's only reducing a high excess of biological pathways to a
moderate excess of working ones (or it ended up being leached into a
sequestration system, never permanently disabling the body's ability
under any reasonable dosage hit), I suppose we'd never notice or need to
care under normal circumstances...
Don't mind me, just need to pluck up the willpower to go on-line and
discover the exact bio-pathway that cadmium interferes with in order to
better understand the difference between the above interpretation of
mine and reality... ;)
Diane L.
> Arthur Hagen skrev:
>> On Sat, 2007-02-10 at 00:07 +0100, Winterbay wrote:
>>
>>> However cadmium is not secreted from the body but accumulates in the
>>> kidneys due to it fitting very nicely in the active pumps that
>>> control some of the body's balances and mercury also has a tendency
>>> to accumulate if received in wrong form...
>>>
>>> So basically it is lucky that Cd is not very toxic since otherwise
>>> we would probably die from kidney failure rather quickly.
>>
>> I don't think it's luck, but evolution. If cadmium had been more
>> toxic, our kidneys would have been better at removing it.
>
> Luck or evolution it is still a bit odd that the kidney instead of
> removing Cd from the bloodstream and from the body it accumulates it
> and in doing so kills itself slowly...
If it's slow enough to ensure that your breeding years are over before
it kills you then it's not odd at all. Evolution doesn't ensure that the
solution that would keep us alive longest is the one to be chosen,
just one that produces offspring.
Diane L.
Richard Bos
> I think it's usually saltpeter [1], at least in the US, which is
> claimed to be the anaphrodisiac of choice for the military and other
> males institutions.
> [2] Don't you think the idea of saltpeter is funny? As if it were a
> preservative until they needed it again?
Oh, I dunno. It sounds to me like military intelligence (read: magical
thinking) at its best.
Richard
Winterbay
> Winterbay wrote:
>> Luck or evolution it is still a bit odd that the kidney instead of
>> removing Cd from the bloodstream and from the body it accumulates it and
>> in doing so kills itself slowly...
>
>
> Given that the simplest term of the word "poison" is "something that
> prevents a catalyst (or enzyme?) from performing properly", isn't
> "getting jammed in the machinery of life" technically 'poisoning' after
> all?
Well you could probably say that yes.
> Now, if it's only reducing a high excess of biological pathways to a
> moderate excess of working ones (or it ended up being leached into a
> sequestration system, never permanently disabling the body's ability
> under any reasonable dosage hit), I suppose we'd never notice or need to
> care under normal circumstances...
True and as Diane stated in her reply if the effect comes up after we
have procreated the effect won't disappear by evolution since there will
be no pressure for it to do so.
> Don't mind me, just need to pluck up the willpower to go on-line and
> discover the exact bio-pathway that cadmium interferes with in order to
> better understand the difference between the above interpretation of
> mine and reality... ;)
What it does (according to my lecture notes) is cause oxidative stress
in the glomeruli but I'm not very good at physiology so I have no idea
how many of the nephrons you need to take out before you start to notice ...
Also a low iron depot in your body increases the uptake and
sequestration in a way that makes women more prone to damage and it also
increases the amount of Metallotionein (or however you spell that
protein in English) in the placenta leading to a lower amount of Zn
arriving at the fetus. This can lead to rather dangerous Zn deficiency
for the fetus with possible effects on the development.
/Winterbay
Alec Cawley
> True and as Diane stated in her reply if the effect comes up after we
> have procreated the effect won't disappear by evolution since there will
> be no pressure for it to do so.
Not necessarily true in a species that offers parental care. It has been
demonstrated that the possession of grandparents does improve a child's
life chances. Indeed, one of the theories for the existence of the
menopause (which very few other animals have, apparently) is that past a
certain age a woman is improving her genetic chances more by helping her
(several) children raise (many) grandchildren than by going through the
fairly risky giving-birth process herself. Genetically, 2 grandchildren
= 1 child.
Esmeraldus
> Winterbay wrote:
>
>> True and as Diane stated in her reply if the effect comes up after
>> we have procreated the effect won't disappear by evolution since
>> there will be no pressure for it to do so.
>
> Not necessarily true in a species that offers parental care. It has
> been demonstrated that the possession of grandparents does improve
> a child's life chances.
I thought that just reflected that if your grandparents were healthy enough
to be alive to BE grandparents, you demonstrably came from long-lived stock.
A la Heinlein's Howard families from the Future Histories.
No, I am not confusing fiction and fact, just illustrating the latter by use
of the former.
--
Stacie, fourth swordswoman of the afpocalypse.
AFPMinister of Flexible Weapons & Bondage-happy predator
AFPMistress to peachy ashie passion & AFPDeliciousSnack to 8'FED
"If you can't be a good example, you'll just have to be a horrible
warning." Catherine Aird, _His Burial Too_
http://esmeraldus.blogspot.com/
Alec Cawley
> Alec Cawley wrote:
>> Winterbay wrote:
>>
>>> True and as Diane stated in her reply if the effect comes up after
>>> we have procreated the effect won't disappear by evolution since
>>> there will be no pressure for it to do so.
>> Not necessarily true in a species that offers parental care. It has
>> been demonstrated that the possession of grandparents does improve
>> a child's life chances.
>
> I thought that just reflected that if your grandparents were healthy enough
> to be alive to BE grandparents, you demonstrably came from long-lived stock.
>
> A la Heinlein's Howard families from the Future Histories.
>
> No, I am not confusing fiction and fact, just illustrating the latter by use
> of the former.
But if you neither help your offspring nor have more of them, Natural
Selection will not want to forward your longevity, regardless of Mr
Howard's opinion. In fact, by stealing resources from them, you may
reduce their number, which is evolutionarily a Bad Thing. To succeed in
evolution, rather than in human drive selection, you must pass more of
your genes down to the indefinite future. For most animals, with no
stock of financial or intellectual capital, and parental care ceasing at
adolescence at the latest, counting adult children is a good enough
surrogate for indefinite reproductive future. But if you want to think
about human evolution, you need to consider the long term gifts that a
parent can pass to its genes, as embodied in successive generations of
successors.
-Wee Rocket
Hooda Thunkit? And here I was, thinking "poison" was an Anglicization
of "bad fish."
Esmeraldus
That's very "big picture."
What did the study actually say? Have we been looking at it long enough to
consider evolution?
IMO, not. What you say makes sense, just as illustrated by the difficulties
my husband and I faced without the support of out parents when raising our
son. Contributing grandparents would have been a help. But not to our son,
to us. I can see it being different among the very poor, where instead of
parental sacrifices (as my husband and I made), the parents have nothing to
sacrifice, so the childern do without, regardless.
But I think that what living grandparents truly represent in the time frame
we're looking at is healthy genes.
ppint. at IMT
brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk "Lesley Weston" advised:
> James Mitchelhill at ja...@disorderfeed.net wrote:
>> Lesley Weston wrote:
>>> Paul Harman at chatt...@doctorwhowebguide.net wrote:
>>>
>>>>How odd. They always taught us in Chemistry class that Copper
>>>>Sulphate was poisonous.
>>>
>>>So it is, which made me wonder too; all copper salts, which do tend
>>>to be shades of blue and green, are poisonous. Perhaps it's blue
>>>from one of the other possible causes, but it might be a good idea
>>>to check the water supply and other sources of possible copper
>>>contamination.
- n.b. having copper water-pipes is not a cause for concern:
not unless your water-supply is distinctly acidic _and_ the
below special point also applies.
>>
>>Copper Sulphate seems to be used as a food preservative sometimes.
>>It even has its own E Number (E519). It seems to be only generally
>>used in pet foods, though.
- i think someone's pointed out an aqueous solution has been
used in various agribusinesses as a fungicide; i believe it
is yet, in viticulture; wash your grapes before eating them!
[or using them in cookery: and there are other nassty things
used in fruit-farming more generally; so be pure, wash, and
practice safe fructitarianism!]
>>
>>According to Wikipedia, 30g of it can be lethal. But I suspect the
>>very small amounts likely to be found in blue garlic are enough to
>>do anyone any harm.
>
>I'm assuming that you intended to put a "not" in there, and replying
>accordingly. It seems like a good idea to avoid whatever poisons one
>can, even in small amounts. If it's simply unavoidable then the trick
>is not to worry about it, but where there's a choice one might as well
>be careful. A small amount of copper is essential to humans and we do
>have a mechanism for excreting any excess - up to a point;
- *most of us* do; a small proportion of - iirc, only - men
do _not_, however; amongst this group, copper is a cumulative
heavy metal poison even when taken in in fairly low doses. an
indicator that this is, or may be, a problem is the laying down
a tell-tale ring of [new] copper-colour at the edge of the iris,
the contracting and expanding coloured part of the eye.
["new" copper colour, because metallic copper is not the same
colour as weathered copper roofs, nor even the vast majority of
"copper" coins in circulation: copper is a metallic, salmony-
pinky-orangey shiny colour when fresh.]
- if you see such a ring of new copper colour in your own eyes,
or those of your child, your s.o, any other relative or friend,
check up further details on a reputable medical web site, and if
it then seems appropriate, arrange an appointment with your gp
or suggest they do]; this isn't a crisis, but it could be an
important longer-term health matter.
- love, ppint.
[the address from which this was posted bounces e-mail;
please change the "f" to a "g" and drop the "v" if you
wish to cc. or e-mail me.]
--
interstellar master traders 33 north road lancaster LA1-1NS england
lancaster's sf/f/horror role-playing game and book shop
http://www.i-m-t.demon.co.uk/ +44-781-344-1539 & +44-1524-382181
10(ish) - 7pm (later by arrangement) monday - saturday
Winterbay
From the description I have heard of the theory the idea was that what
the grandparents had to give us was "this plant is good to eat and this
one is not", i.e. information about what is a good idea to eat and what
is not, where to hunt for animals and so on. That would certainly help
in a hunter-gatherer society like the one the stone age people often are
attributed to have had...
/Winterbay
Alec Cawley
The study did not consider evolution. It did look at the total number of
surviving descendants about 100 years later. It took place, IIRC, in
rural Sweden in a period in which documentation was good but mobility
low - about 1850 to 1950 IIRC (which I probably don't). All it showed
was that women who survived well into their grandchildren's childhood
had more descendants at the end of the sample period even when you
allowed for how many children they themselves had had.
> IMO, not. What you say makes sense, just as illustrated by the difficulties
> my husband and I faced without the support of out parents when raising our
> son. Contributing grandparents would have been a help. But not to our son,
> to us. I can see it being different among the very poor, where instead of
> parental sacrifices (as my husband and I made), the parents have nothing to
> sacrifice, so the childern do without, regardless.
But, on an evolutionary timescale, your family is very atypical. You
should not think of your 21st century experience as typical of people in
the past - particularly before contraception. Traditionally, once mated,
women will bear children "continuously" for a period. They will
typically have many children to care for at a time. Two factors come in
here. Firstly, child mortality was a significant culling mechanism, and
a grandmother can tend to a sick child in a way that a mother,
responsible for the household and the other children could not.
Secondly, sheer workload would probably reduce fertility, both by
reducing sexual drive and reducing the probability of conception. A
grandmother who lifted some load from the exhausted mother might be
rewarded with extra grandchildren.
>
> But I think that what living grandparents truly represent in the time frame
> we're looking at is healthy genes.
"Healthy" genes is a weighted term. I think you mean "long lived" genes.
What is healthy for the individual may not be good for the species -
in fact, it may well be bad. Evolution regards the phenotype as
essentially disposable, and you only put enough energy into it to do the
job it needs to. According to the (probably UL) story, when Henry Ford
found that the Big Ends on Model Ts never wore out before the car, he
cheapened them. The idea is for the whole thing to wear out at once. In
many animals (e.g. salmon, mayflies), each individual lives long enough
to do its reproductive thing, then dies, leaving its share of the
earth's resources to its children. In the case of humans, because we
nurture out children, the point when parents are "finished with" is less
obvious. One theory says that humans live about twice as long as we
"should" do for the size of mammal we are. This could be because we are
useful as grandparents when other animals are useful only as parents.
There is no reason to believe that we are getting genetically healthier
in your sense i.e. potentially more long lived. There have always, so
far as we can tell from records, been scattered individuals who lived as
long as most people do today. But they were the lucky ones who, at the
ragged edge of the statistical curve, avoided all the many accidents
which could have killed them earlier. The current rise in longevity
appears to be due to factors such as reliable childhood nutrition, lack
of wars and lethal squabbles, antibiotics, heating, cancer treatment and
so on. So we routinely expect to live to ages at which, in the past,
people would have become famous for reaching.
Alec Cawley
No. Much more "I'll look after the sick baby while you cook for the
family" or "I'll look after the family while you pretty yourself up for
your husband" or "I'll help you though the birth".
One advantage a grandmother would have would be as a roving resource.
While consuming only one person's share of the resources (remember, most
primitive groups spend some time at starvation level, which forms the
bottleneck which controls their groups size) while providing crisis
support for several families headed by her children. While the children
would probably provide some cross-support, they would be unlikely to do
so as well as Granny because of the weaker relationship and the
higher-priority demands of their own children.
Len Oil
> Hooda Thunkit? And here I was, thinking "poison" was an Anglicization
> of "bad fish."
On the etymological front, I've always been of the impression that it
(like, or even through, "potion") came from the same root as "potable",
i.e. drinkable... (As in /possible/ to drink, not /safe/ to do so,
obviously... ;)
But right this moment I haven't the energy to go on-line to do the
leg-work, or even reach back over my right-hand shoulder[1] for the
dictionary a mere two feet[2] away. ;)
[1] Nice trick if you can do it... ;)
[2] Legs, hands, shoulders, feet..? Igor's obviously not been tidying
up after himself...
Esmeraldus
Well, yeah, but surely any village elder would serve that function? And
didn't a lot of primitive societies (or, isn't it theorized that...) have
the youths trained by the men, and the maidens trained by the matrons? We're
not talking nuclear families, here. Way I understand tribal cultures in
North America (Cherokee, for instance), pretty much everyone over age X was
a grandparent to everyone under age Y. I'm getting beyond my area, but I
didn't at all have the idea that stone age people organized themselves along
those lines.
Esmeraldus
> Esmeraldus wrote:
> "Healthy" genes is a weighted term. I think you mean "long lived"
> genes.
Not especially. Mostly, yes, but I also meant to some extent not having
nasty recessives. If your grandparents died of some nasty congenital
disease, you might carry the genes.
I'm bowing out, because I've got an exam to study for, and we're beyond te
scope where I can have an informed opinion.
Winterbay
>> what the grandparents had to give us was "this plant is good to eat
>> and this one is not", i.e. information about what is a good idea to
>> eat and what is not, where to hunt for animals and so on. That
>> would certainly help in a hunter-gatherer society like the one the
>> stone age people often are attributed to have had...
>
> Well, yeah, but surely any village elder would serve that function? And
> didn't a lot of primitive societies (or, isn't it theorized that...) have
> the youths trained by the men, and the maidens trained by the matrons? We're
> not talking nuclear families, here. Way I understand tribal cultures in
> North America (Cherokee, for instance), pretty much everyone over age X was
> a grandparent to everyone under age Y. I'm getting beyond my area, but I
> didn't at all have the idea that stone age people organized themselves along
> those lines.
>
That might be but I only wrote what the lecturer told us was the
hypothesis, I have no idea if it is valid in real life or not or even if
it was _the_ grandmother or just any old person...
/Winterbay
Lesley Weston
Though there's quite a lot of evidence that having people survive at least
one generation beyond having bred and raised their offspring is advantageous
to their line and to the species. Grandparents can help with the children;
great-grandparents can perhaps help financially or in other
security-providing ways, so the children have advantages over those of
short-lived families.
Esmeraldus
> Though there's quite a lot of evidence that having people survive
> at least one generation beyond having bred and raised their
> offspring is advantageous to their line and to the species.
> Grandparents can help with the children; great-grandparents can
> perhaps help financially or in other security-providing ways, so
> the children have advantages over those of short-lived families.
All I was really thinking is that when your MD asks you how many of your
genetic grandparents are alive, she's not thinking about whether Grandma
helped Mum with babysitting, or whether the helped out financially.
I'm pretty sure those questions are more directly aimed at finding out the
general physical health of your line, with consideration to predisposition
toward heart disease, diabetes, other conditions...
Though it could be extended to possibly including the vague questions of
prenatal care and infant nutrition, that gets sorta vague...
I see it composed of the former and tinted with the latter consideration.
Arthur Hagen
> Winterbay wrote:
>>
>> Luck or evolution it is still a bit odd that the kidney instead of
>> removing Cd from the bloodstream and from the body it accumulates it
>> and in doing so kills itself slowly...
>
> If it's slow enough to ensure that your breeding years are over before
> it kills you then it's not odd at all. Evolution doesn't ensure that
> the solution that would keep us alive longest is the one to be chosen,
> just one that produces offspring.
No, it has to produce *viable* offspring, which makes a big difference. For
a nurturing species like ours, it means that the parents have to stick
around until their kids are old enough to survive on their own. There's
also a genetic benefit to living ancestors sticking around to assist their
descendants, so genes for that will be rewarded too. But not long enough
that they become more of a burden than a gain; then it's time for Deep
Sleep.
Regards,
--
*Art
April Goodwin-Smith
> Lesley Weston wrote:
>> Though there's quite a lot of evidence that having people survive
>> at least one generation beyond having bred and raised their
>> offspring is advantageous to their line and to the species.
>> Grandparents can help with the children; great-grandparents can
>> perhaps help financially or in other security-providing ways, so
>> the children have advantages over those of short-lived families.
> All I was really thinking is that when your MD asks you how many
> of your genetic grandparents are alive, she's not thinking about
> whether Grandma helped Mum with babysitting, or whether the
> helped out financially.
>
I can't find it, but I recall reading a summary of a study where the
researchers watched a current huntergather group, and checked
the food portions of the kids at the end of each day. Those with
living grandmothers tended to get food that was better quality, and
they got food more consistently than kids whose grandmothers were
not living.
On the other hand, the relationship of the grandmother to the
child seems to be an issue, at least in later cultures. A study
of, I think, German census data from the mid 1850s showed
that there was a higher mortality rate for children living with
their paternal grandmother than for children living without a
grandmother present in the home or children living with a
maternal grandmother.
All very strange, eh?
Also, I don't think your MD is interested in your likelihood
of contributing to the gene pool when she asks you about
your grandparents. I think it is an opening question for
gently leading to asking about what deceased antecedents
died of.
April.
Esmeraldus
> Also, I don't think your MD is interested in your likelihood
> of contributing to the gene pool when she asks you about
> your grandparents. I think it is an opening question for
> gently leading to asking about what deceased antecedents
> died of.
But that's what I was getting at. You make me forget WHY, though. But what
THEY died of might be what kills YOU, is where I think I was going, so if
they haven't died of ANYTHING yet, you're doing okay!
Eric Jarvis
<6Qpzh.23122$yx6....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>:
>
> IMO, not. What you say makes sense, just as illustrated by the difficulties
> my husband and I faced without the support of out parents when raising our
> son. Contributing grandparents would have been a help. But not to our son,
> to us. I can see it being different among the very poor, where instead of
> parental sacrifices (as my husband and I made), the parents have nothing to
> sacrifice, so the childern do without, regardless.
>
Not quite. What grandparents bring to the table includes alternative role
models. I grew up with regular contact with all four of my grandparents
and they all had a definite effect on who I am. Perhaps that's most
notably the case with my mother's father who died when I was eight years
old and thus had a strong influence on me and little influence on my
younger siblings. In fact I'm the only one of his grandsons who really got
to spend a significant amount of time with him.
It also means having a better perspective on history. The events that have
affected me at only one remove go back an entire generation compared with
what would have been the case if I'd not spent plenty of time having my
grandparents give me an adult perspective of events way back into the
1930s.
That doesn't mean to say that there aren't alternative ways of giving a
child that diversity of adult role models, just that the nuclear family is
not and should not be the ideal. In an ideal world it takes more than two
people to raise a child. It takes as many as can be trusted.
--
eric
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"
Lesley Weston
v$af$pp...@i-m-t.demon.co.uk wrote on 10/02/2007 10:07 AM:
> - hi; in afparticle, <C1F094EA.57359%brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk>,
> brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk "Lesley Weston" advised:
>> James Mitchelhill at ja...@disorderfeed.net wrote:
>>> Lesley Weston wrote:
>>>> Paul Harman at chatt...@doctorwhowebguide.net wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> How odd. They always taught us in Chemistry class that Copper
>>>>> Sulphate was poisonous.
>>>>
>>>> So it is, which made me wonder too; all copper salts, which do tend
>>>> to be shades of blue and green, are poisonous. Perhaps it's blue
>>>> from one of the other possible causes, but it might be a good idea
>>>> to check the water supply and other sources of possible copper
>>>> contamination.
>
> - n.b. having copper water-pipes is not a cause for concern:
> not unless your water-supply is distinctly acidic _and_ the
> below special point also applies.
Vancouver's water supply is indeed remarkably acidic, which means that it's
also remarkably soft, which means that we're at a significantly higher risk
of developing heart problems than people elsewhere. Since most people's
houses have copper water pipes, we also have to deal with the copper salts
deposited in the bath, which is a nuisance. The gummint keeps promising that
they'll Take Steps to raise the water's pH Real Soon Now, which would fix
both problems if they ever did it.
As you say, there isn't much of a health risk (to nearly everybody) from
the copper, but it would be nice if they really did fix the water, even so,
and also nice if there weren't any risk at all. And of course replacing
copper pipes with plastic ones would fix the second problem anyway.
>>>
>>> Copper Sulphate seems to be used as a food preservative sometimes.
>>> It even has its own E Number (E519). It seems to be only generally
>>> used in pet foods, though.
>
> - i think someone's pointed out an aqueous solution has been
> used in various agribusinesses as a fungicide; i believe it
> is yet, in viticulture; wash your grapes before eating them!
>
> [or using them in cookery: and there are other nassty things
> used in fruit-farming more generally; so be pure, wash, and
> practice safe fructitarianism!]
Excellent advice! Even organic foods are handled by pickers who may not be
supplied with proper loos and washbasins, or who may not use same if they
are.
Arthur Hagen
>
> That doesn't mean to say that there aren't alternative ways of giving
> a child that diversity of adult role models, just that the nuclear
> family is not and should not be the ideal. In an ideal world it takes
> more than two people to raise a child. It takes as many as can be
> trusted.
The answer to that is usually zero. But then again, learning that adults
aren't always trustworthy is also an important part of a child's education.
Regards,
--
*Art
Thomas Zahr
...
> But that's what I was getting at. You make me forget WHY,
> though. But what THEY died of might be what kills YOU, is
> where I think I was going, so if they haven't died of
> ANYTHING yet, you're doing okay!
I know a family where the grandmother was only 45 when she
turned great-grandmother.
--
Ciao
Thomas =:-)
<http://www.zahr.de>
-Wee Rocket
Here's my (shaky) reasoning: The Normans were the masters for a while,
therefore were resented. Their language got mixed up with English when
they were in charge. Their word for house became the English word for
master's house: "mansion," etc. "Beef" "Mutton" meaning cow or sheep you
feed the master. I see that as the reason the English say "BERN-erd" and
"BYOO-lee" and "GAIR-idge," as a way to show their contempt for the
French. Therefore I saw "poison" as referring to the French word for
fish. Slipping some material from a rotten fish into the master's
porridge might put an end to him, if you could season it to get him past
the smell.
Lesley Weston
Thomas Zahr at Use...@zahr-mail.de wrote on 11/02/2007 11:35 AM:
> Esmeraldus posted:
>
> ...
>
>> But that's what I was getting at. You make me forget WHY,
>> though. But what THEY died of might be what kills YOU, is
>> where I think I was going, so if they haven't died of
>> ANYTHING yet, you're doing okay!
>
> I know a family where the grandmother was only 45 when she
> turned great-grandmother.
Yes, but is she healthy?
Thomas Zahr
> in article
> Xns98D4D1735A930T...@ID-179574.user.uni-berli
> n.de, Thomas Zahr at Use...@zahr-mail.de wrote on
> 11/02/2007 11:35 AM:
>
>> Esmeraldus posted:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> But that's what I was getting at. You make me forget WHY,
>>> though. But what THEY died of might be what kills YOU, is
>>> where I think I was going, so if they haven't died of
>>> ANYTHING yet, you're doing okay!
>>
>> I know a family where the grandmother was only 45 when she
>> turned great-grandmother.
>
> Yes, but is she healthy?
Don't know about healthy, fertile though, certainly.
--
Ciao
Thomas =:-)
<what a waste>
Lesley Weston
Rocquette Morton
> German census data from the mid 1850s showed
> that there was a higher mortality rate for children living with
> their paternal grandmother than for children living without a
> grandmother present in the home or children living with a
> maternal grandmother.
> All very strange, eh?
<delurk>
Not if you figure that only maternal grandmothers know for sure their
genes are present in the grandchild. So biologically for paternal
grandmothers helping their grandchildren survive is evolutionary as
rewarding as humanity is monogamous.
Probably not a lot, then.
</delurk>
++ Morton! ++