Sea Salt
What about sea salt? Is it safe? Obviously, if one has a choice Atlantic Sea Salt would likely be preferable, but if one shops at places like Whole Foods, sea salt is ubiquitous, with no clear source.
Search
What about sea salt? Is it safe? Obviously, if one has a choice Atlantic Sea Salt would likely be preferable, but if one shops at places like Whole Foods, sea salt is ubiquitous, with no clear source.
Back about 1970 I worked in a
Back about 1970 I worked in a health food store in Manhattan. Amongst the things we sold was sea salt. We had quite a few varieties. However, I remember that a study came out showing that sea salt was actually dangerous to use. It was found that large amounts of bacteria and even viruses were in the salts. i learned that sea salts are not actually processed the way salts like Mortons or other big brands. Sea salts are produces by a heating and drying process that draws off water but leaves the salt crystals behind. But this process does not heat the salts enough to kill the bacteria. common table salts go through a process that purifies the salt and renders it safe. I remember that one particular sea salt from the Dead Sea that was so popular was found to contain tuberculosis organisms in it.
ever since then I have steered clear of these sea salts. I think anyone that tries to use so called natural products that do not properly process and purify the ingredients is endangering themselves. wisdom is not necessarily natural, it is learned.
Comtaminate Sea Salt
Do you have any documentation regarding bacterial contamination? The reason that I would be skeptical is that salt, itself, kills many (not all) microorganisms, and I believe that sunlight (used to dry many sea salts) is also bacteriacidal and virucidal.
"What about sea salt? Is it
"What about sea salt? Is it safe?"
Heck no! Sodium intake has been correlated with a whole host of health problems. And do you know how many people die in auto accidents driving back and forth to the store to buy their sea salt?
Concerned about sea salt? Then...
...you should probably buy a Geiger counter and test it for yourself, because the only thing you will get here is argument - lots and lots of argument. For example, see http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/forum/218/brawm-question-testing-food-geiger...
The referenced thread was mainly about salt substitute, potassium chloride, commonly derived from sea kelp.
P.S. if you have any pre-Fukushima sea salt for comparison, that might help.
Professor Farnsworth
"...you should probably buy a
"...you should probably buy a Geiger counter and test it for yourself"
Wow. Given all the time you spend lurking on this site you display an alarming inability to actually learn anything about radiation detection.
Your post is...
... a desperate ad hominem attack by the lackey of a dying empire. Enjoy your day.
Professor Farnsworth
ad hominem
ad hominem ad hominem ad hominem ad hominem ad hominem ad hominem ad hominem.
You have nothing else. Stop whining and SAY SOMETHING BASED IN REALITY.
ad hominem ad hominem ad hominem ad hominem ad hominem
WORTHLESS ADVICE as per usual
"Professor" Fransworth states:
...you should probably buy a Geiger counter and test it for yourself, ...
As Mark of BRAWM has pointed out here many times, a Geiger counter is pretty WORTHLESS for detecting Fukushima contamination:
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/forum/218/brawm-question-testing-food-geiger...
Geiger counters are rather blunt instruments; they can detect radioactivity but they cannot tell you which isotope is responsible for it. One might detect radioactivity using one of these instruments, but there is plenty of benign natural radiation out there (e.g., where does the 38 CPM of the background test come from?). A Geiger counter would really only be useful for finding contamination in northeast Japan and nowhere else in the world.
A Geiger counter in this case will only see the natural radioactivity, and won't tell you whether there is any contamination due to Fukushima.
Worthless advice, as per usual.
Worthless advice times two ... or three -
Anyone trying to decide who is dispensing worthless advice should read the ENTIRE thread starting at
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/forum/218/brawm-question-testing-food-geiger...
... instead of jumping all the way to your last post there, as you did in your duplicate post above. I suppose this is an improvement over your earlier TRIPLICATE post at
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/forum/218/hypothesis-excess-cancer-clusters-...
And if my Geiger counter indicated that salt substitute was now FIVE TIMES more radioactive than pre-Fukushima, I would advise NOT to eat it, regardless of whatever gibberish BRAWM spews forth.
Professor Farnsworth
Yes - please read the entire thread
Yes - please read the entire thread.
You will see "Professor" Farnsworth get his rear end kicked by a sub-atomic particle physicist named Diemos.
One can appreciate seeing the difference between those who know what they are talking about, like Diemos; and the totally clueless, fear-mongering Farnsworth.
The problem is the "IF"
"Professor" Farnsworth doesn't even know the magnitude of the Fukushima emissions.
He postulates a Geiger counter reading five times normal.
BRAWM has actually made the measurements; and NEVER got a reading that was five times normal. In fact, the increases were down in the noise, orders of magnitude below the normal, natural levels.
Evidently, Farnsworth has been following the results of BRAWM; or more likely lacks the mental horsepower to understand those results.
He also made the mistake of assuming I made the triplicate post. When I submitted my duplicate post, my browser indicated an error. I didn't know whether the original post "took" or not.
WORTHLESS ADVICE as per usual
"Professor" Fransworth states:
...you should probably buy a Geiger counter and test it for yourself, ...
As Mark of BRAWM has pointed out here many times, a Geiger counter is pretty WORTHLESS for detecting Fukushima contamination:
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/forum/218/brawm-question-testing-food-geiger...
Geiger counters are rather blunt instruments; they can detect radioactivity but they cannot tell you which isotope is responsible for it. One might detect radioactivity using one of these instruments, but there is plenty of benign natural radiation out there (e.g., where does the 38 CPM of the background test come from?). A Geiger counter would really only be useful for finding contamination in northeast Japan and nowhere else in the world.
A Geiger counter in this case will only see the natural radioactivity, and won't tell you whether there is any contamination due to Fukushima.
Worthless advice, as per usual.
Sea Salt
You make a good point about how South this forum goes at times.
It seems there are serious people who really utilize this useful forum...who might disagree, but do so with facts...and then there are people who make it a playground for childish behavior.
Sarcasm is out of place here. Who would have thought that a question about salt would have led to an assault.