[Grovenet] What happened to Dairy Queen?

Wed Nov 7 13:17:00 PST 2007

I don't think the problem is with the "artificial" chemicals at all, but
rather that it takes generations of use to begin to understand their impact.

All the FDA can assure us is that, from the best they can determine, a food
or drug is not likely to cause severe harm in the very near future. It's
anyone's guess after that, even if one stops  using the chemical. 

I raised a DES child in the early 1960's. Like many thousands of other
pregnant mothers, my wife showed possible signs of miscarriage. To his
credit, the OB/GYN's first reaction was that miscarriages were nature's way
of ending a bad pregnancy, but my wife was worried sick about losing her
baby. So, after running a lot of tests that showed no other abnormalities he
prescribed diethylstilbestrol, DES, a thoroughly tested and approved drug
for her condition that had been in use for well over decades with absolutely
no complications. She carried our child to term and Rebecca was a born very
healthy, robust little girl.

It was several years later that we got a call from a very distraught
physician. In a solemn face-to-face meeting he explained that ALL children
whose mothers took DES were turning up certain problems as the children
approached maturity. In girls it was certain problems in her cervix that
might render her sterile or give her cancer. Indeed, it was an abnormally
high death rate from cervical cancer among young women in their 20's and
30's that had led back to DES. 

At the very least our daughter would need to start seeing  a doctor for
detailed yearly checkups starting in her early teens. It was not a matter of
*if* she had problems, it was only a matter of how severe and when they
would appear. 

Even though all of my education and experience to that time had been in
science and engineering, I realized that I had been putting too much
unscientific faith in our scientific protocols. In short, while I was quite
capable of analyzing probabilities and doing measurements in a lab, I had
taken a totally un-scientific attitude toward what we were doing. I was
trusting that our scientific efforts were adequate. 

They weren't. 

>From that day on, any chemical I put in my body that hadn't been in use at
least as long as aspirin became suspect. I do use modern drugs as needed,
but I also recognize that I don't know what I'm doing to myself except for
the very short-term effects I hope to gain. I weigh the short term
advantages against very real, possible long term effects that could cripple
or kill me. 

My goal became learn to listen to my body and  recognize when it was telling
me something was out of balance.

My mantra became "all things in moderation". 

After all, even arsenic is a well-proven tonic in miniscule amounts. 

Ron D'Eau Claire 

-----Original Message-----
From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On
Behalf Of Carol Morgan
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 10:31 AM
To: Forest Grove local interests list
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] What happened to Dairy Queen?

I actually use Splenda quite often, because my husband is watching his
weight and doesn't really want to pay any price to do that. 

I know artificial sweeteners have their detractors, but I actually feel
better about them than real sugar (of any kind)  for the following reasons: 

First, all of the artificial sweeteners from saccharine, the most panned,
have been extensively studied in terms of what harmful effects they might
have. People were sure that they were to good to be true and have blamed
them for pretty much every potential harm and they have pretty much come out
unscathed.  

I think that the discrepancy between people thinking that 'artificial'
chemicals (if there really were a distinction) are bad for us and the fact
that very few have ended up having the severe bad effects that were
forcasted is that I think it is very likely that the more a chemical is
designed not to interact with the systems of our body in any real way, the
less it has the capacity to affect it to the worse. 

For instance, my friend made the argument that she was avoiding the use of
artificial coloring because she saw it come out in her child's #2. I asked
her whether she thought that might mean that unlike real sugar, which as it
travels through the body is doing all kinds of very powerful things to the
various systems of the body, these artificial colors are doing absolutely
nothing and thus pass all the way out of the body  unchanged.  One of the
reasons fiber is good for us is precisely because of this. She was
dumbfounded by my argument and though undeterred at going natural, admitted
that this made sense and was something she had never thought of.  Very much
the reaction I often get.  Interesting and unusual, though mostly
inconsequential. 

I do agree that unintended consequences on living organisms should be
considered, both theoretically and experimentally, but if something isn't
designed (unlike sugar and insulin and corn) to interact with biological
systems, it won't, not even in unpredicted or longterm ways.  It is kind of
like when King James 1 put a bear and a lion together in a pen to see what
would happen.  They aren't natural enemies so they ignored each other. 

This is kind of why I like Splenda.  It is based on a real sugar molecule,
but is modified so that it doesn't even interact with our metabolism.  

------ Original Message ------ 
Received: 09:33 AM PST, 11/07/2007 
From: chuck <chuck at grovenet.net> 
To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com> 
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] What happened to Dairy Queen? 

It's a shame really, as raw unprocessed cane sugar provides a rich 
source of natural vitamins and minerals. But we have to process the 
heck out of it, stripping any nutritional value. Something else I 
learned, white table sugar is filtered using 'bone char'. Bone char is 
basically the charcoaled remains of animal bones. It's what makes our 
sugar 'white'. Both C&H and Domino use this process. Sounds nasty to 
me. Of course they say they import this 'char' from overseas and only 
use the bones of cows that died a natural death.............riiiiight. 

And High Fructose Corn Syrup (which is in almost everything) is more 
than likely made from Genetically Modified Corn. Thanks Monsanto. 
Another reason for me to avoid it. 

Good alternatives are Stevia, Turbinado Sugar, Raw Sugar, and Agave 
Nectar. They're not as easy to spot in the stores, but Freddys has a 
pretty good selection, as well as New Seasons. 

chuck 

Carol Morgan wrote: 
> 
> A teaspoon of cane sugar, though, certainly bears little resemblance 
> to most of the sweet products consumed. Increasingly the form of 
> sugar being used is corn syrup, which is much more highly 
> concentrated, has a higher glycemic index, and some argue due to the 
> omnipresence of other corn products in everything we use, is causing 
> alergies and even toxicity in some people. 
> 
> And even in a normally functioning pancreatic system, the insulin 
> surges produced by such high quantities of sugar in one concentrated 
> form (very unlike the berries of our ancestors which are quite low in 
> sugar per ounce) have short and long term ill affects on the body. 
> Insulin is one of the most bioactive chemicals known, and one of its 
> primary purposes is to store fat. Without it we couldn't do it. That 
> is why childhood diabetics are usually quite thin. 
> 
> But secondary diabetics usually get that way after constantly 
> submitting their bodies to high insulin surges, resulting in an 
> aquired tolerance, much like to narcotics, along with the obesity that 
> this often causes. 
> 
> A teaspoon sounds so innocent, oh that we all stopped there.... 
> 
> 
> ------ Original Message ------ 
> *Received: *07:48 AM PST, 11/07/2007 
> *From: *"Ron D'Eau Claire" <ron at cobi.biz> 
> *To: *"'Forest Grove local interests list'" <grovenet at rdrop.com> 
> *Subject: *Re: [Grovenet] What happened to Dairy Queen? 
> 
> 
> Sugar has a lot going for it. It's a form of quick energy, a lift that we 
> enjoy. It's why healthy people crave fresh fruits, berries and other 
> naturally sweetened foods. The sweetness is sugar. 
> 
> Calories? A teaspoon full - a HUGE amount to consume at a sitting - 
> has all 
> of 25 (that's twenty-five) calories! Better yet, it's a food most of our 
> bodies process easily. Only those whose systems has been injured by 
> disease 
> or obesity can no longer tolerate it easily. 
> 
> Not all the dangerous drug dealers are standing on street corners. 
> Many of 
> them are supplying the foods and drinks you can buy in the grocery store. 
> 
> Ron D'Eau Claire 
> 
> 
> 

_______________________________________________ 
GroveNet mailing list 
GroveNet at rdrop.com 
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet 

  _____  