Re: microwave ovens (was Re: FW A very thought-provoking paper)
REH wrote: It seems that micro-waves kill enzymes that are necessary for digestion and her digestion was the one thing that showed up on the tests. She also had enjoyed cooking her own meals since she was a baby, in the micro-wave oven. He explained that food was her first medicine and that she had not had the necessary enzymes to digest the food so it basically fermented in her stomach and the resultant toxins gave her ulcers (no there were no bacterial problems) and now her stomach was an irritated mess. Basically, all enzymes are destroyed above 42 degrees Celsius, no matter whether in conventional ovens or in microwave ovens. But there are 3 other differences between microwave and conventional cooking: - Pathogens like salmonellae, E.coli etc. survive better in microwave ovens because the heating is quite irregular and usually shorter. [1..3] - The unusual heating (from inside to outside and depending on local water content) leads to food being hotter inside than expected, which leads to internal burns after ingestion. [4] - Microwave cooking can put toxic plastics components from the package into the food. [5,6] All 3 points happen to be decisive in the etiology of stomach ulcers and irritated digestion. This is researched by medical science, not a secret of homeopaths. ;-) Sorry for the off-topic post.. Chris References: [1] Salmonella outbreak from microwave cooked food. Evans MR; Parry SM; Ribeiro CD Epidemiol Infect, 1995 Oct, 115:2, 227-30 [2] Protective effect of conventional cooking versus use of microwave ovens in an outbreak of salmonellosis. Gessner BD; Beller M. Am J Epidemiol, 1994 May, 139:9, 903-9. [3] Survival of microbial films in the microwave oven. Page WJ; Martin WG Can J Microbiol, 1978 Nov, 24:11, 1431-3 [4] Laryngeal burns secondary to the ingestion of microwave-heated food. Goldberg RM; Lee S; Line WS Jr. J Emerg Med, 1990 May-Jun, 8:3, 281-3. [5] Effect of microwave heating on the migration of dioctyladipate and acetyltributylcitrate plasticizers from food-grade PVC and PVDC/PVC films into olive oil and water. Badeka AB; Kontominas MG Z Lebensm Unters Forsch, 1996 Apr, 202:4, 313-7 [6] Migration of polyisobutylene from polyethylene/polyisobutylene films into foods during domestic and microwave oven use. Castle L; Nichol J; Gilbert J Food Addit Contam, 1992 Jul-Aug, 9:4, 315-30
Re: FW A very thought-provoking paper
Ray said(in part): "Two of those can best be shown with the following examples. The first is about Medicine. We have a Medical Model that is basically chemical intervention on a war footing against disease. A member of my family that is now fifteen has, since birth, been a participant in that belief system. Her health has steadily declined until this year she missed a whole semester of school as the family took her from the internist to the gastrointorologist, to the neurologist, to MRIs, to various "oscopies" and she just got worse. Along the way she also started psycho-therapy just in case. Actually, given the failure of everyone to even help, the latter makes the most sense if she was to survive the bungling of the rest. Finally we took her to a homeo- pathist who works with a regular internist who ordered more tests." - Ray, , I was just thinking similar thoughts about western medicine as I was driving into work at lunch today. King Hussein's death was being talked about on the news. They were mentioning all the high tech treatments he had received in the US. I remember reading an article where a leading researcher in chemotherapy developed cancer and chose not to go through the standard chemo process. He said he knew too much. Tony Hillerman has a beautiful section in one of his Jim Chee, Joe Leaphorn Navaho mystery novels. Chee tells a white friend that he would be doing a healing ceremony over the weekend for an old Navaho women who was dying. The white friend inquires on the following Monday if the healing ceremony had been successful. Chee says yes. The white friend, somewhat bewildered, asks if she wasn't going to die. Chee replies of course she is. The healing ceremony was 'successful' because the old woman and her family found peace and acceptance through the sacred ritual. Helps me with Wittgenstein's aphorism: 'Ethics and Aesthetics are one' ** * Brian McAndrews, Practicum Coordinator* * Faculty of Education, Queen's University * * Kingston, Ontario K7L 3N6 * * FAX:(613) 533-6307 Phone (613) 533-6000x74937* * e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]* * "Ethics and aesthetics are one"* * Wittgenstein * ** ** **
Re: microwave ovens (was Re: FW A very thought-provoking paper)
REH wrote: Christoph Reuss wrote: Basically, all enzymes are destroyed above 42 degrees Celsius, no matter whether in conventional ovens or in microwave ovens. But there are 3 other differences between microwave and conventional cooking: - Pathogens like salmonellae, E.coli etc. survive better in microwave ovens because the heating is quite irregular and usually shorter. [1..3] - The unusual heating (from inside to outside and depending on local water content) leads to food being hotter inside than expected, which leads to internal burns after ingestion. [4] - Microwave cooking can put toxic plastics components from the package into the food. [5,6] All 3 points happen to be decisive in the etiology of stomach ulcers and irritated digestion. This is researched by medical science, not a secret of homeopaths. ;-) Chris, I have known about 2 and 3 but the food propaganda here is the opposite of number one. In fact they recommend pre-cooking ground meats in the Micro-Wave to kill organisms like salmonella and e-coli if you like rare meats. Let's analyze this (it does fit together): Conventional ovens heat the food from outside to inside, so the pathogens INside ground meat survive if you don't cook it long enough. Microwave ovens heat the food from inside to outside, so the pathogens on the _surface_ survive if you don't cook it long enough (and on most food _except_ ground meats, most of the pathogens are on the surface, hence my point 1). Thus, it does make sense to PRE-cook ground meats in the microwave (killing the pathogens INside) and then cook it regularly. See, "the devil is in the details"... ;-) Also your second statement goes against your first No, because on most foods the majority of pathogens is on the surface. Ground meat is an exception as the name implies. But my daughter recieved initially the best of science. Considering that she was seen at three of the biggest hospitals in New York, Columbia, Mount Sinai and Roosevelt, all prestigious and all scientific and they came up with nothing except making the therapist more useful because of her lack of hope. I don't understand your last statement. We thoroughly followed that route and it came up zilch! Except it cost us $10,000 even with insurance. Well, it's an open secret that "mainstream" docs have virtually no idea of nutrition and prevention. This is a structural problem in their education. Your criticism of the medical system is perfectly valid on that account. However, your homeopath seemed to imply that enzymes survive in conventional cooking but not in microwave cooking, which was a wrong interpretation. I've heard similar stories on homeopaths being wrong in the explanations but right in the results (well, sometimes). That's how homeopaths work, after all. ;-) You said it's on-topic :) Chris
Re: microwave ovens (was Re: FW A very thought-provoking paper)
Christoph Reuss wrote: Let's analyze this (it does fit together): Conventional ovens heat the food from outside to inside, so the pathogens INside ground meat survive if you don't cook it long enough. Microwave ovens heat the food from inside to outside, so the pathogens on the _surface_ survive if you don't cook it long enough (and on most food _except_ ground meats, most of the pathogens are on the surface, hence my point 1). Thus, it does make sense to PRE-cook ground meats in the microwave (killing the pathogens INside) and then cook it regularly. See, "the devil is in the details"... ;-) Like you say, but all of the foods that I have in my kitchen and thedirections in the Micro-wave states that food should be left for a few minutes, before removing. It seems that the heat comes to the outside. But the main issue for me was with meat that has the pathogens ground into the center. I've learned to be afraid of pink hamburger. Something that is pointed out in Dr. Michael Arnott's book on Breast Cancer is that cooking in the oven or on the stove creates carcinogens that contribute to breast cancer in women. Not the case in the Micro-wave. So choose your poison.I still prefer fresh, organic tasty food. The Micro- wave doesn't deliver on that one.And my daughter is much improved, in school, doing three hour a night homework assignments and happy. Hey what's wrong with that? (snip) Well, it's an open secret that "mainstream" docs have virtually no idea of nutrition and prevention. This is a structural problem in their education. No it's a structural problem with the double-blind testing method and theprivate enterprise system that is only rewarded AFTER you get sick. They have an investment in your being ill! Your criticism of the medical system is perfectly valid on that account. However, your homeopath seemed to imply that enzymes survive in conventional cooking but not in microwave cooking, which was a wrong interpretation. Well, he is a five-star French chef. Maybe there was something lost in thetranslation. I'll check it out with him. But even my stomach doesn't enjoy the food from the Micro-wave either. Kind of like cooking in old grease at the stomach level. I keep the Zantac close by. I've heard similar stories on homeopaths being wrong in the explanations but right in the results (well, sometimes). That's how homeopaths work, after all. ;-) I once had a heart surgeon tell me that 800 IUs of vitamin E was bad for me and could harm my internal organs. (note that they now recommend that amount and above for healthy hearts). I asked my heart surgeon of the time about the right amount and he said he would check with a specialist but he knew that I was wrong. The issue of healing one's self and taking care by practicing healthy prevention practices seems to be the only answer given the future of medical work in these times. Especially for folks like myself without personal medical coverage.I draw attention to Brian's post for the rest. But this issue of the medical Doctor's needing to be a businessman, according to Wall Street, and having a vested interest in creating a market by making you sick in order to need him is a little wierd, don't you think? You don't believe me? Remember it was business that came up with the idea of "planned obsolescence." And yes I do believe that it is on topic. It's all work and definitely a problem of the future. Economically, I wish the economists on the list would explain the economics of being a Doctor given the current climate both in the U.S. and Canada. It don't make sense! (idiomatic Oklahoma speech with a nasel twang like Garth.) REH
Re: FW A very thought-provoking paper
Brian McAndrews wrote: (snip) I remember reading an article where a leading researcher in chemotherapy developed cancer and chose not to go through the standard chemo process. He said he knew too much. Education's a B__! as they say here on the streets of NYCity.Thanks for the Hillerman. That is what I was taught ceremonies are about. I'm not superstitious, I'm just a Priest. Our way of saying your Wittgenstein quote is "Walk in Beauty." REH Tony Hillerman has a beautiful section in one of his Jim Chee, Joe Leaphorn Navaho mystery novels. Chee tells a white friend that he would be doing a healing ceremony over the weekend for an old Navaho women who was dying. The white friend inquires on the following Monday if the healing ceremony had been successful. Chee says yes. The white friend, somewhat bewildered, asks if she wasn't going to die. Chee replies of course she is. The healing ceremony was 'successful' because the old woman and her family found peace and acceptance through the sacred ritual. Helps me with Wittgenstein's aphorism: 'Ethics and Aesthetics are one' ** * Brian McAndrews, Practicum Coordinator* * Faculty of Education, Queen's University * * Kingston, Ontario K7L 3N6 * * FAX:(613) 533-6307 Phone (613) 533-6000x74937* * e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]* * "Ethics and aesthetics are one"* * Wittgenstein * ** ** **
Re: FW A very thought provoking paper
Thomas: This is a lengthy essay with many new ideas to absorb, I was fascinated and overwhelmed. There are some very new thoughts in here and some good interpretations of changes that we are all involved in but haven't really had anyone explain to us. For example, these incredibly cumbersome voice programs you get when you call a company for information in which you have to listen to a number of menu choices and may never deal with a real human is an attempt, according to the author, to move information that was once analog, two people talking to each other, to digital where your responses are immediately coded into bits and bites for more efficient storage and retrieval - a thought I had not encountered before and which explains my resistance to a major cultural change that new technology and business is forcing on us. Anyway, read it, I'm going to reread it. Quote: But there are two important differences. Employment in agriculture fell as employment in manufacturing was growing; employment in manufacturing fell as employment in the service sector was growing. And in both agriculture and manufacturing the slow pace of change made it easier for the growing sector to absorb the labor that was being cast out of the shrinking sector. The pace of technological change is much faster now. And there is no apparent sector that can absorb the labor that the knowledge sector casts off or the labor cast off by other sectors that the knowledge sector fails to absorb. When we finally get around to asking "What comes after knowledge work?" we have to admit that there is no answer. But there are two important differences. Employment in agriculture fell as employment in manufacturing was growing; employment in manufacturing fell as employment in the service sector was growing. And in both agriculture and manufacturing the slow pace of change made it easier for the growing sector to absorb the labor that was being cast out of the shrinking sector. The pace of technological change is much faster now. And there is no apparent sector that can absorb the labor that the knowledge sector casts off or the labor cast off by other sectors that the knowledge sector fails to absorb. When we finally get around to asking "What comes after knowledge work?" we have to admit that there is no answer. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde -Original Message- From: S. Lerner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]@dijkstra.uwaterloo.ca [EMAIL PROTECTED]@dijkstra.uwaterloo.ca Date: February 4, 1999 1:23 PM Subject: FW A very thought-provoking paper Kit Taylor sent me this reference to a paper that strikes me as really important if we are to understand the future of work. Visit the website if you are interested - that's the best way to access the paper. Sally Conference paper on the technological unemployment of knowledge workers ( The Brief Reign of the Knowledge Worker: Information Technology and Technological Unemployment) which is at: http://online.bcc.ctc.edu/econ/kst/BriefReign/BRwebversion.htm The author's website is http://online.bcc.ctc.edu/econ/kst/Kstpage.htm
