CAN THE HAM KILL?
This recent article is from José Miguel Mulet Salort, known as JM Mulet, titular professor of biotechnology at the Polytechnic University of Valencia (Spain), author of a controversial book on food "Comer sin miedo" (Eat without fear) , I highly recommend you read thoroughly, and great defender of the scientific consistency face the canards of anti-science movements.
He systematically attacks the stressful arguments, frequently released into the air by environmental activists, without reference or without reliable scientific evidence.
I recommend his blog (in Spanish) www.jmmulet.naukas.com and his Twitter account @jmmulet.
Here is the article.
"Can the ham kill?
EVERYTHING IS TOXIC.
Last week I told how what is presented by the media as a scientific experiment, not always is it seems to be, in general because of a lack of control.
There is another case that highlights the distance that exists between science and the media. In general the research is correct, the checks are correct, the scientist communicates to the media ... and the news that is published has nothing to do with the discovery. Often the press release gives an alarmist version, or present as a scoop something that is not.
First, a scientific discovery is published in scientific journals or patented. Easy, right? In fact sometimes the simplest control mechanism can fail. When a scientist makes a press conference to communicate a discovery, without publication or patent ... it's a hoax, or he seeks recognition. Many great hoaxes of science as the engine water of the University of Valencia, cold fusion or cancer in rats fed with GM corn, were presented at a press conference without anyone having seen the article. And in general, articles are never published or are published and removed.
Let's go to the second problem, alarmism. For example, let's do a simple and imaginary experiment. Take someone and do him eat 100g of serrano ham and assess his health. The day after give him 200g, 400g the next day and so on, doubling the dose each day. At first, all health parameters are normal, but when the dose is increased, we observe that the kidneys and other organs begin to fail. Ultimately, the subject dies. The scientist publishes the latest ham absorbed dose (almost 4 kg at once) and tells all to the press. The headline is: "Serrano ham is very toxic."
Imaginary? For any substance we can determine its toxicity level making similar experience to the one I just described, but on animals. The most typical parameter is the LD50 (lethal dose) which is the concentration which causes half of the animals of the experience die. And there is always a level at which a substance whatsoever, is toxic.
For example, the LD50 of the water is 6 liters. Currently that many mayors want to ban Glyphosate, it should be said that the one of caffeine or aspirin is much lower. That is to say, it takes a much smaller dose to die. It's the same with cancer-causing compounds. There are tests to assess the ability of a compound to cause cancer, and the result is not "yes" or "no", but a probability of causing cancer in a given time lapse. For this reason, when there was a panic, just a few months ago, because the ham and mortadella were carcinogenic, it should be noted that the important thing is not that they are, otherwise in what magnitude. And this magnitude is very low. In fact, the imaginary subject of previous experience does not die of cancer, but saturated by ham.
A similar error is possible on the contrary, when the problem is not in large amounts, but in small ones. For example, press titles such as "Water in that city contains cocaine ..." or "Air in that city contains heroin ...". Well, if you go to a party this weekend, it will not be necessary to spend a lot in vices, simply drink and breathe and shoot you out for free. You'll really be drugged? Of course not. The issue is that detection systems are ever more accurate, and the quantities that previously went unnoticed, now are detected. And the situation is the same as before, the important thing is not what, but how. If you do the math, to get a cocaine ray, you should drink all the water from the dam of Contreras. But there is a problem, before noting the influence of cocaine, you would be dead.
Remember, water is toxic. More than 6 liters kill you. "
I just tell you that the dam of Contreras, in Spain, in the province of Valencia, has an area of 2710 ha and a capacity of 943 million m3 of water.
A small clear article.
Be careful, very careful with what is said, with what is published.
Just two years ago, I published on this blog an article entitled "We are all targets! " https://culturagriculture.blogspot.com.es/2014/04/12-we-are-all-targets.html
I explained how our behaviors are studied and analized, in the way to always present to us what we are supposed to expect. The article was oriented to consumer goods in general, the development of consumption, to encourage us to spend money.
I could make the same article, almost without changing anything, to explain how our fears are studied and used to lead us toward the direction that some want.
One year ago, in February 2015, I published another article on "Alar case" https://culturagriculture.blogspot.com.es/2015/02/38-alar-scare.html in which I told you one of the first anti pesticides hoax, in the 80s, which led to the removal of a totally harmless product, used to improve the preservation of fruit. A beautiful scientist handling and a well-orchestrated televised communication, forbade anyone to save a useful product, without any reason, for purely ideological reasons.
In September 2015, the French web ForumPhyto published an interesting article on the usual confusion between hazard and risk http://www.forumphyto.fr/2015/09/07/clairement-distinguer-danger-et-risque-risque-danger-x-exposition/ . These two concepts are very different, but the general public does not differentiate, and environmentalists lobbies extensively play with this ignorance.
Actually risk = hazard x exposure.
You can access an interesting video, in English https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZmNZi8bon8&feature=youtu.be in which it is explained (among other things), how wheat flour does not present usual risk to health. Yet the baker, several hours a day exposed to flour dust, may develop specific pathologies, sometimes serious, due to its exposure.
Should we ban wheat flour because it is scientifically proven that it can cause serious illness?
In October 2015, I published another article entitled "The bluff conspiracy" https://culturagriculture.blogspot.com.es/2015/10/56-bluff-conspiracy.html in which I explained how environmental lobbies manipulate us, acting on our fears to lead us to support their theses and their worldview.
I also explained that their purposes are not humanists, just the opposite. Killing does not scare them. In fact they are directly responsible for thousands of deaths every day. These are crimes against the poorest humanity, supported by the richest humanity.
Ultimately, think twice before signing a petition, before asking the ban of one thing or the withdrawal of another.
Who does it benefit?
Who will earn profit from this movement you support with all your good faith?
And what are the real consequences of that withdrawal or the prohibition?
I am preparing another article, this time on glyphosate, the herbicide everyone except farmers, wants to see disappear.
Social networks have turned into a huge manipulative platform.
You are manipulated. We are manipulated.