hello wytze,
>As promised, some data on mineralchange in sprouting seeds. Source
is a
>French book: "Decouvrez les graines germees" (discover sprouted
grains)
>from 1983 by M. Cayla.
>He gives for wheat the following figures:
> Phosphorus:
>Magnesium Calcium
> whole grain 423mg%
>133mg% 45mg%
>sprouted grain 1050mg% 342mg%
>71mg%
>
>In oats he found an augmentation of Calcium of 300-350%
>
>Unfortunately, most of the sprout-research has focused on vitamins
and
>amino acids.
no, i think: fortunately! why does the above looks to me like "cold
fusion in the test tube" and written in another mail "transmutation
in the beanfield" ?
>One interesting figure concerns provit A in rice Carotene in rice
>increases from 0,3mg in unsprouted rice to 4mg/100g in seedlings
of seven
>days. (I do not know how riceseedlings taste and whether they are
used as
>food anywhere.)
you are surprised by the rise in carotins ? i hope not really,
because carotinoids buildup during photosynthesis and are the
antenna pigments, which by absorbing light between the
wavelenghts of 400-500 (or was it 550??) carry this energy to the
chlorophylls. more chlorophyll in the plant ->> more carotins...
while an increase in SOME minerals certainly would be an
improvement for human health (if only people ate this food),
calcium and especially phoshorus are no minerals we do lack.
calcium loss by bone degeneration has another reason than
undernourishment of thast mineral. too much of these two even
tends to be dangerous. an overall increase in *trace minerals* in
organic food would be the REAL improvement compared to
conventional food.
so question a) who says, that more minerals are correlated with
more healthy ?
and do you really believe, that organic food would increase the
contents of several minerals ten- or even elevenfold ??? (like
once stated here).
to all organics: don't argue with health claims. this will be the
future problem for producers of nutraceuticals. let THIS problem
about the degree, from which on a food can be claimed "healthy", be
THEIR problem. you do organic food no favor by exaggerating and
claiming unproven and unprovable things.
want another cold fusion in the test tube ??
here we go, this time from university guys !!!
Could cunning chemistry keep carbon in
check?http://www.eurekalert.org/releases/nsci-ccc012600.html
26 JANUARY 2000 AT 14:00 ET US
Contact: Claire Bowles
claire.bowles@rbi.co.uk
44-0-207-331-2751
New Scientist
Could cunning chemistry keep carbon in check?
An enzyme that breaks down alcohol in the liver could be used to
recycle carbon, rather than pumping ever more into the
atmosphere, say chemists in Illinois. They have developed a more
efficient way of turning the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide into
methanol using the enzyme.
Invented by Bakul Dave and Robyn Obert of the Southern Illinois
University in Carbondale, the process effectively reverses the
chemistry of burning. It promises to be a highly efficient way to
produce methanol, a clean-burning fuel that can be used to power
cars. What's more, if the energy needed to drive the process came
from sources that don't generate CO2, this fuel could be produced
and used without adding to the greenhouse effect.
To make methanol, the liver enzyme and two bacterial enzymes are
embedded in a sponge-like, glassy material, which is placed in
water. When CO2 is bubbled through the water, one of the
bacterial enzymes, formate dehydrogenase, converts CO2 into
formic acid. Then another, formaldehyde dehydrogenase, transforms
the formic acid into formaldehyde. Finally, alcohol
dehydrogenase, which normally helps our livers to detoxify
alcohol, completes the reaction by turning the formaldehyde into
methanol. Each of the enzyme reactions is reversible, so to drive
the process in the right direction, the Illinois team adds a
fourth, electron-donating ingredient called nicotinamide adenine
dinucleotide (NADH).
The spongy glass, a substance called a silica sol-gel, is the key
to the reaction's success. It contains millions of microscopic
pores that act as mini-reactors. By mixing the enzymes with the
liquid gel, Dave and Obert successfully locked them into the
structure. "When it solidifies, the enzymes get trapped," says
Dave. "The enzymes can't get in or out, but the small reactants
can," he says. So CO2 and NADH can get in, and methanol can
diffuse out.
To make the process practical, the NADH will have to be recycled
by constantly replenishing the electrons it feeds to the enzymes.
Dave and Obert say this might be possible if the sol-gel is made
from materials which conduct electricity and feed electrons back
into the system. "The idea is that you'd feed in current
directly," says Dave. Ole Kirk, a senior researcher at the Danish
enzyme manufacturer, Novo Nordisk, says that regenerating NADH in
this way is feasible. NADH is extremely expensive, but if you
could recycle it, he says, this would not be a problem.
If Dave and Obert can solve the remaining problems it might be
possible to recycle the CO2 from, say, power stations. But this
would be pointless if as much CO2 were produced in generating the
electricity needed to drive the reaction.
###
Author: Andy Coghlan
New Scientist issue 29th January 2000
PLEASE MENTION NEW SCIENTIST AS THE SOURCE OF THIS STORY AND, IF
PUBLISHING ONLINE, PLEASE CARRY A HYPERLINK TO :
http://www.newscientist.com
Source: Journal of the American Chemical Society (vol 121, p 12
192)
------
no problem with mentioning NEW SCIENTIST, it's always a pleasure
to me to debunk such idiotic conclusions ???
"If Dave and Obert can solve the remaining problems...". tell
me: where do these fools in lab coats get the energy for the
replenishment of the enzymes from ?? from nowhere ??
----------------------
let us instead stay honest and straight, like i saw it in the
masterpiece telephone interview by chuck benbrook or the
statements from mark ritchie, which i found in "the corporate
reapers" (by chance i also have the article of dale o. wilson jr.
as corresponding author with s. krishna mohan in seed technology
(unique seed quality problem of sh2 sweet corn my desk).
THESE are the people we need to oppose things like found in the
following contrast programmes:
"Novartis plays down GMO crop sowing survey" [338] - "Novartis
AG played down results of a Reuters survey on Thursday suggesting
U.S. farmers planned to scale back their sowing of genetically
modified crops, saying it had seen no switch so far away from its
modified Bt corn," reports Reuters.
[338] http://biz.yahoo.com/rf/000113/84.html
-----
"Modified corn, soy seeds still selling - firms" [336] - "Early
seed sales for 2000 crops show U.S. farmers are buying about as
much genetically modified corn and soybean seed as a year ago,
according to spokesmen for three major seed companies," reports
Reuters.
[336]
http://newsnet.reuters.com/cgi-bin/
basketview.cgi?b=rcom:health&s=nN13571967
-----
"The Great Egg Panic" [474] - "New government proposals
designed to check salmonella poisoning could force routine
pasteurization or irradiation of the American egg supply.
However, the plans are derided as political window dressing by
some of the nation's leading specialists in salmonella and eggs.
They challenge the plans' root assumptions, from characterization
of the pathogen, to numbers of people supposedly sickened, to
what should be done that could actually improve food safety,"
reports The Los Angeles Times.
[474] http://www.latimes.com/food/20000105/t000001225.html
-----
CHALLENGE of the day: "Hudson Institute Agriculture Scholars
Challenge Organic Food Industry's Misstatements" [361] - The
Center for Global Food Issues Director Dennis Avery rebuts the
organic food industry's "damage control" efforts just days after
its leaders were questioned extensively on ABC's 20/20.
[361] http://www.usnewswire.com/topnews/Current_Releases/0214-
108.html
---and here the reasons, why the above CANNOT be the true and only view of things:
"US farmers desert GM crops" [302] - "The first firm evidence has emerged that the bio-tech food revolution is in retreat in its heartland - the vast cornfields of the American Midwest where the overwhelming bulk of the world's genetically engineered crops are grown. US farmers have just finished buying seed for the coming growing season, and early studies suggest that a significant proportion are abandoning GM," reports The Guardian.
[302] http://www.newsunlimited.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,137582,00. -----
"Exposed: the great organic food rip-off" [483] - "Supermarkets are taking advantage of the huge demand for organic food by charging grossly inflated prices, according to the most extensive survey of its kind to date. Customers shopping at the big-name retailers are being asked to pay 60 to 70 per cent more for organic meat, vegetables and other foods than for the ordinary equivalents. In some cases, the difference is far greater; organic potatoes in one high street supermarket last week cost 285 per cent more than the non-organic kind. Thanks to BSE and the GM food scare, demand has risen for produce farmed organically, without chemical pesticides and fertilisers. Sales are expected to reach ú1bn a year by 2002. Organic production costs are a third higher, but the new survey reveals that the average price difference on the shelves is double that," reports The Independent.
[483] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/UK/Environment/2000-02/ organic060200.shtml -----
klaus
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 11 2000 - 22:02:08 EDT