Norwegian Fish (and fish oil) Radioactive ?
Paul Wakfer
Max Watt
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2941073.stm
Also see http://www.bellona.no/en/energy/nuclear/sellafield/24388.html
They conclude the fish are safe, but shellfish are not: "Although the
Norwegian waters, fish and other seafood in general can be considered
clean, the seaweed and lobsters can not. This clearly demonstrates the
actual environmental problems caused by Sellafield, and there should
be no doubt that this source must cease. "
Radioactive contamination is a potential problem with west coast
salmon, too:
http://www.radioactivist.org/new.html
Steve Harris
"Max Watt" <maxwa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:870a5d01.03042...@posting.google.com...
> paul....@iobox.com (Paul Wakfer) wrote in message
news:<51430230.0304...@posting.google.com>...
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2941073.stm
>
>
> Also see
http://www.bellona.no/en/energy/nuclear/sellafield/24388.htm
l
>
> They conclude the fish are safe, but shellfish are not:
"Although the
> Norwegian waters, fish and other seafood in general can be
considered
> clean, the seaweed and lobsters can not. This clearly
demonstrates the
> actual environmental problems caused by Sellafield, and
there should
> be no doubt that this source must cease. "
COMMENT
Yes, but the data they give doesn't support their own
conclusion. They write:
Based on these results, and previously published data, the
radioactive contamination of the northern marine environment
is in generally low, this is also valid for the levels in
fish and other seafood in general. This fact is clearly
underlined when compared to the actual limits of Cs-137 for
consumption as recommended by the EU and the Norwegian
authorities, respectively: 600 Bq/kg for food articles (with
the exception of milk and baby food which is 370) and 3000
Bq/kg for game, reindeer and wild, fresh water fish.
Okay. A Bq is one disintigration per second, 27 picocuries.
A damned small amount of radiation. For reference, your own
natural K-40 and C-14 each contribute around 50 to 60 Bq per
kg of your body. So together just these two natural
radioisotopes contribute 3 times the Bq of the amount of
Tc-99 the article is getting upset about in lobster.
IOW, why go bananas about an extra 30 Bq in lobster which
has at least 100 Bq anyway from its own K-40 and C-14, and
is going to be eaten by people who have at least the same?
Yes, the seaweed had 500 Bq/kg (dry) but not too many people
are going to be consuming kg of dry seaweed. And even if
they did, it wouldn't go over the European limit for
radiocontamination food, which as we see above is 600 Bq.
(If you're feeding your babies dry seaweed, look out.)
Steve
*Note: There is one aspect we didn't go into, which is
conversion of Bq into mrem, a difficult excercise which is
dependent on the isotope and the kind of radiation it gives
off, and how energetic it is. For example, yourbody's 16 mg
of K-40 provide 40 times the amount of rem (actual damage)
as your body's total burden of C-14, even though the Bq rate
(disintigrations per sec) are roughly the same for each. So
there is an offset possible for Tc-99, but I'm guessing
without having done this calculation that overall that Tc-99
will not be all that much more damaging per Bq than K-40.
They make much the same kind of radiation (betas and low
energy gammas).
SBH
Max Watt
> "Max Watt" <maxwa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:870a5d01.03042...@posting.google.com...
> > paul....@iobox.com (Paul Wakfer) wrote in message
> news:<51430230.0304...@posting.google.com>...
> > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2941073.stm
> >
> >
> > Also see
> http://www.bellona.no/en/energy/nuclear/sellafield/24388.htm
> l
> >
> > They conclude the fish are safe, but shellfish are not:
> "Although the
> > Norwegian waters, fish and other seafood in general can be
> considered
> > clean, the seaweed and lobsters can not. This clearly
> demonstrates the
> > actual environmental problems caused by Sellafield, and
> there should
> > be no doubt that this source must cease. "
>
> COMMENT
>
> Yes, but the data they give doesn't support their own
At least they concluded the fish was safe! Given the current
hysterical attitude toward any form of radiation, I wonder that
microwave ovens and infra-radiating remote controls aren't suspect,
too.
Señora Momenta
Well my bil can taste the microwaves in microwaved food.
He won't eat bread either, coz of the live yeast.
He should post here -- he would be amongst friends :)
Moosh:)
M. Schwartz
Hi Lady of the moment, ;-)
I am probably out of touch with the microwave situation. There was a
time when microwaves were kind of iffy in terms of health with regard
to radiation. Have things changed now so that they are completely
safe? Is there some criteria by which one should choose a microwave?
Mel
Tim Tyler
: I am probably out of touch with the microwave situation. There was a
: time when microwaves were kind of iffy in terms of health with regard
: to radiation. Have things changed now so that they are completely
: safe? [...]
There are some known microwave issues.
One is that research has shown that some types of bacteria can survive
microwaving - Listeria in particular - but also other nasties - such as
salmonella.
Then there's the superheating problem when boiling water:
http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/~jw/superheating.html
Exposure to microwaves leaking from ovens has also been noted
as a possible issue.
My own observation is that uneven heating - in combination with
rapid heating in the absence of water can too easily lead to
over-cooking - where "thin" areas of the food dry out - and
then char.
Others see more problems with microwave ovens than me.
Here is the sort of page they create:
http://home.planet.nl/~holtj019/GB/Microwave.html
http://www.truthcampaign.ukf.net/articles/health/mw_danger.html
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ t...@tt1.org
George W. Cherry
"Tim Tyler" <t...@tt1.org> wrote in message news:HE5C3...@bath.ac.uk...
> In sci.life-extension M. Schwartz <schw...@evenlink.com> wrote:
>
> : I am probably out of touch with the microwave situation. There was a
> : time when microwaves were kind of iffy in terms of health with regard
> : to radiation. Have things changed now so that they are completely
> : safe? [...]
>
> There are some known microwave issues.
>
> One is that research has shown that some types of bacteria can survive
> microwaving - Listeria in particular - but also other nasties - such as
> salmonella.
> Then there's the superheating problem when boiling water:
> http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/~jw/superheating.html
Just don't superheat water in smooth containers.
Microwave the water for a reasonable time, and
you won't superheat it. With every heating de-
vice you must use discretion.
> Exposure to microwaves leaking from ovens has also been noted
> as a possible issue.
Don't remove the microwave screen from the
door and you'll be okay.
> My own observation is that uneven heating - in combination with
> rapid heating in the absence of water can too easily lead to
> over-cooking - where "thin" areas of the food dry out - and
> then char.
Use a microwave with a carousel and always use
some water. I use water even if the directions don't
call for water. First, I heat the water (I don't super-
heat the water) and then I add the food (usually
frozen) to be cooked, and I cook it for the specifed
amount of time or a little longer. This avoids hot
spots. With a little bit of common sense, microwave
ovens are safe and convenient.
George
Max Watt
>
> : I am probably out of touch with the microwave situation. There was a
> : time when microwaves were kind of iffy in terms of health with regard
> : to radiation. Have things changed now so that they are completely
> : safe? [...]
>
> There are some known microwave issues.
While some of these may or may not really be an issue, I see a
parallel.
150 years ago cast-iron wood-burning stoves began to replace
open-hearth cooking in this country. A number of tracts appeared
claiming stove-cooked food was not as healthy as open-hearth cooking,
laying forth any number of issues.
"They don't make thinks like they used too. In fact they never did."
A. Luddite
John the Man
>From: "George W. Cherry" gwch...@alum.mit.edu
>Date: 4/30/03 4:37 PM !!!First Boot!!!
>Use a microwave with a carousel and always use
>some water. I use water even if the directions don't
>call for water. First, I heat the water (I don't super-
>heat the water) and then I add the food (usually
>frozen) to be cooked, and I cook it for the specifed
>amount of time or a little longer. This avoids hot
>spots. With a little bit of common sense, microwave
>ovens are safe and convenient.
Being perfectly serious, the only thing that is required for safety and good
tasting food is knowing how to cook with a microwave. Personally, I nuke my
food.
Many critics of microwave food simply don't know how to cook.
Hark! My private health newsgroup beckons!
--
John Gohde,
Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science!
The nutrition of eating a healthy diet is the foundation of the
biomedical model of natural health. Weighing in at 17 webpages,
Nutrition (www.Food.NaturalHealthPerspective.com/) is now with more
documentation and sharper terminology than ever before.
M. Schwartz
Tim, you are one amazing person. I appreciate the work you do looking
up things and giving us valuable information. But, Tim, is there a
product out there that you can't find something bad about? :-)
You scared the hell out of me about soy. I tried to eat my soy
meatballs today but after every bite, well, my hand began to shake and
the meatball kept falling off the spoon.
Seriously, Tim, you are doing one hell of a good job here and I really
do appreciate all your effort.
Thanks!
Mel
Tim Tyler
:> Others see more problems with microwave ovens than me.
:> Here is the sort of page they create:
:>
:> http://home.planet.nl/~holtj019/GB/Microwave.html
:> http://www.truthcampaign.ukf.net/articles/health/mw_danger.html
: Tim, you are one amazing person. I appreciate the work you do looking
: up things and giving us valuable information. But, Tim, is there a
: product out there that you can't find something bad about? :-)
I'm usually interested in reading about downsides.
The prudence principle usually dictates negative studies be given more
weight than positive ones.
However at the same time, many of the fears about microwave ovens
have proved to be without good foundations.
: You scared the hell out of me about soy. I tried to eat my soy
: meatballs today but after every bite, well, my hand began to shake
: and the meatball kept falling off the spoon.
FWIW, I have not - by any means - eliminated common
phytoestrogen sources from my diet.
I do - however practice moderation when it comes to soy and clover.
My soy intake is practically zero - though I have been known to
munch on soy leaves occasionally.
One area I'd like to learn more about is the situation with flax seeds.
Looking at http://www.herbalchem.net/Introductory.htm it seems that
legumes have one set of phytoestrogens - isoflavones - and that seeds have
another - lignans - and I don't yet fully understand the significance of
the differences between them.
Most of the negative information I have relates to legume phytoestrogens.
M. Schwartz
I have seen it said that flax seed oil is not recommended for men. I
believe it had something to do with cancer. I do know that Dr. Weil
recommends grounding the seeds in a blender but not taking the oil -
regarding men.
Mel
Alf Christophersen
<sbha...@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> wrote:
>Okay. A Bq is one disintigration per second, 27 picocuries.
>A damned small amount of radiation. For reference, your own
>natural K-40 and C-14 each contribute around 50 to 60 Bq per
>kg of your body. So together just these two natural
>radioisotopes contribute 3 times the Bq of the amount of
>Tc-99 the article is getting upset about in lobster.
Anyone allowed to measure Bq's of radioactive elements in food grown
in the wind directions of Nevada desert?? Would think they mostly are
in the range of >100000 Bq/kg food.
Remember Po pollution in tobacco leaves was that high they alone could
explain all cancerogenic effects of tobacco.
Alf Christophersen
>My own observation is that uneven heating - in combination with
>rapid heating in the absence of water can too easily lead to
>over-cooking - where "thin" areas of the food dry out - and
>then char.
Once upon a time mecanical typewriters was also unhealthy and made you
ill. One theory was that it sent out dangerous radioactive irradiation
(at the time, that was a very novel invention, and most people didn't
know at all what it was about, so, what later was explained by wrong
body movements (the same leading to mouse disease), was at that time
explained by many fancy rumours, all equally false :-)
The same applies to micro wave rumours giving radioactive food :-) But
not killing bacteria if not heated thoroughly enough is a concern and
also charring food (my experience was a piece of bread with some
cheese that I melted about 20 sec to long at full, suddenly turned
black, charred and caught fire. What a terrible smell,