How can you tell which science is correct? Here we have two examples of science: spiritscienceandmetaphysics/scientists-reviewed-343-studies-to-see-if-organic-food-is-better-for-you-heres-what-they-found-out/ med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2012/09/little-evidence-of-health-benefits-from-organic-foods-study-finds.html As you might notice, both are scientific, but their results are polar opposites.Stanfords study was not an in house experimental program to determine chemical differences with scientific rigor, simply a review of other studies. 237 studies. Neither was Newcastles. They reviewed 343 other studies. These universities did not review all published studies, which amounts to cherry picking of data; regardless of intent, they did not review all the material. So as far as Im concerned, these results cannot be trusted for two reasons: 1: lack of rigorous adherence to scientific process and due diligence. 2: failure to conduct in house studies to verify results. Im sure you all know which side Im on, but Newcastles results mention, Researchers also found lower levels of the harmful heavy metal cadmium and lower levels of nitrogen, both of which are dangerous to human health. Cadmium, which is also present in cigarette smoke, can cause damage to the liver, kidneys, and other bodily functions and organs. Researchers were unable to explain why there were lower levels of these toxic compounds in organic food, but it’s been speculated that the use of glyphosate (Roundup) based pesticides may induce heavy metal uptake in ‘conventional’ crops as it does in other organisms. Well, if these so called professional scientists cant tell you the answer, allow me to enlighten you: The non-organic (my favorite misnomer) crops have more nitrogen because THEY ARE ALL BLASTED WITH UREA NITROGEN FERTILIZERS. Ammonium and Potassium nitrate are commonly used as fertilizers (when theyre not busy being used to create explosive weaponry) even though they are not bioavailable to plants. The presence of these compounds is an obvious reason why conventional crops have more nitrogen - because the plants cant readily convert them into biomass, and so they remain in raw form in the soil and the plant material. Many of these fertilizers are applied via aerial spray, so they literally coat the leaves of the plants, increasing prevalence. Obvious. But maybe they cant afford to make a theoretical claim, because they didnt do the study themselves. No, wait! They freely speculate that roundup may cause absorption of of cadmium with out thorough research. I have a theory of my own about this. Wild speculation, mind you, but based on historical facts. During the Vietnam war, Monsanto provided the defoliant agent orange for use in disrupting the Viet-Congs guerrilla tactics. The presence of PCB in agent orange was a happy accident since it is not a defoliant, is not included in the recipe, and is one of the most toxic and expensive industrial waste products to dispose of in the history of chemistry. The simplest explanation is that Monsanto snuck it in there, hoping to quietly dispose of it on our then enemies in Vietnam. This has led to a legacy of birth defects in Vietnam that rivals even Chernobyl in its severity. So I wouldnt be at all surprised if they were pulling off the same trick with cadmium, dispersed in small quantities throughout all the roundup on Earth. And has anybody done a study on this? Any takers?
Posted on: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 15:53:41 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015