altamira wrote:
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-extropians@extropy.org
> >
> > My little sister worked part time for a local dairy farmer (she
> > found dealing
> > with cows very relaxing after a long day dealing with hospital
> > morons' self
> > generated problems with their computers) and is of the opinion,
> > and the guy she
> > worked for is also of the opinion based on his own research, that
> > BGH is not a
> > threat, that its all just scare tactics by 'organic' farmers
> > trying to boost the
> > market for their higher priced products.
>
> What sort of research did the guy your sister worked for do? I haven't seen
> any research on BGH, but I've looked at the research on 2,4-D, which is a
> synthetic plant growth hormone. Some of the research concludes that it
> causes cancer in mammals; other research says it doesn't, and it's not
> always obvious from the published papers why there should be such
> discrepancies. Possibly there's some factor that wasn't controlled for, such
> as the presence or absence of other synthetic hormones in the animals'
> diets, possibly some of the data was faked--who knows?
I suggest you read the book _Science Under Siege_. Its very good at
illustrating how environmentalists and 'consumer advocates' use
fraudulent science, or misuse actual scientific data to support their
unsupportable positions. Essentially, EVERYTHING causes cancer, if you
feed rats enough of just that substance. Bran can be made to cause rats
cancer, vitamins, life extension drugs, EVERYTHING. What you need to
look at is the discrepancy between what is called the LD50 point (where
50% of test animals died), and what the normal dose is. If the normal
dose is 10 milligrams per day, and the LD50 dose is 2 kilograms per day,
thats a significant difference, and does not provide any rational
scientific data on its actual carcinogenic risk. The greens think that
if any animals at all die in the test, no matter how much they were
force fed or injected with, then its a 'carcinogenic substance'.
>
> My basic strategy is to err on the side of caution when it comes to eating
> potentially powerful chemicals, whether they be naturally occurring or
> synthetic. I don't, for example, eat datura seeds or mescal beans or the
> glandular secretions of frogs. Clearly, 2,4-D and BGH are not as toxic as
> those things. I may be silly to avoid them, and in fact I don't always
> avoid them. I DO sometimes eat in restaurants or at the homes of people who
> aren't as picky about their food as I am. But I don't think I'll feel
> comfortable eating these hormones regularly until I'm able to figure out why
> there are such differences in the research results.
What is the LD50 dose for 2,4-D, and what is the typical level found in
a normal serving of your garden vegetables when they have been raised
fertilized with this chemical???
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:35:31 MDT