Happy Dog wrote:



More likely that he, being a store employee knew how rancid dairy gets
in a short time. So much for pasteurization.

Also more likely he, being witness to all the obese tubs of lard buying
dairy got turned off at the sight.

Whatever his impetus he told George he was aware that cow milk presents
certain health problems for humans.

What more would he or anyone need to know?

banmilk@hotmail.com wrote:
In a science forum? How about a little science?

TC

In article <FCRwe.1302$aY6.386@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.n et>,
George Lagergren <gel44@earthlink.net> wrote:

Yes, it's amazing what marketing will cause people to buy, isn't it?
Bottled water. Astonishing. The profit margins must be gigantic.

As usual, you are wrong. And the pH of soda is not a big deal.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"I believe The Battle of the Network Stars should be fought with guns."
-- Steve Martin

In article <1120165628.629075.254970@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups .com>,
<banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote:
Most refrigerated products in stores go bad eventually. However, milk
often has a pull date of a couple of weeks beyond the time it arrives
on store shelves.

I find your posts quite emetic, but luckily, they don't turn me off to
milk.

Well, one might like to know a good reason for taking health advice
from a cashier, but perhaps that's where you get all of yours.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"I believe The Battle of the Network Stars should be fought with guns."
-- Steve Martin

"TC" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> replied:
The science against the drinking of cow's milk is located at the
www.notmilk.com web site.
And in the books: "Milk: The Deadly Poison" and "Milk: A to Z."

"David Wright" <wright@l1000.prodigy.net> wrote in message newst2xe.18600
Even if the profit margin on bottled water is huge, the total
cost of bottled water is cheap - bottled water still only costs one dollar
per gallon. While regular cow's milk costs about four dollars per gallon.

And organic milk (without the bovine growth hormones) costs about $5.50 to
$8.50 per gallon.

In article <Jq3xe.14383$pa3.9139@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink .net>,
George Lagergren <gel44@earthlink.net> wrote:
Ordinary milk often lacks the BGH too, but you can't be sure.

Remember, George, water is just water. Milk has calories, nutrients,
etc. Comparing milk to water doesn't make much sense.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"I believe The Battle of the Network Stars should be fought with guns."
-- Steve Martin

nospam@aol.com wrote:

Poor Vince. His styrofoam cups dissolve and make a mess because oil
dissolves them. It must be *M*A*G*I*C* styrofoam that they use for those
soup bowls with soups in them that have oils. And in more than 30 years
of selling beverages, "e.g. tea to which fresh lemon is added" I've
never had one single complaint about a leaker. Not one. Never seen one.
Not. One.

Beyond that, Vince is seriously out of the polystyrene loop. He doesn't
know the current thinking about recycling it and how his heat-reduction
approach offers a markedly inferior recycled product.

I drink hot tea at home. I use 16 ounce styrofoam cups because I like
for it to stay warm for a long time and because I use that styrofoam as
a heavy clay-soil amendment in gardening - my sister says it's dumb and
it may be, but it's what I choose to do. I drink maybe of these 5 big
cups of tea a day (1/2 and 1/32 decaf and regular). I put the cups on
various pieces of wooden furniture - nightstand next to my bed, computer
desk, a trunk/coffee table in the living room, wooden tray tables at the
end of my couch. There are no rings for all that dissolved styrofoam and
the cup contents that Vince cautions against.

It's a singular astonishment in this litigious age that there are no
warnings on these deadly styrofoam cups that advise people not to put -
what was the first problem; Oh, yes. Acids. - in them or foods or
beverages containing oils.

I found this:
"Styrofoam can be dissolved by the juice
squeezed from the peel of oranges. When
one hears this one naturally wants to test it
oneself. If, without delay, you rub some
styrofoam with orange peel, the styrofoam
will be somewhat indented. Certainly, this
level of ability to dissolve is nowhere near
adequate to build a practical system. However,
if the chemical limonene, which
constitutes about 0.5% of citrus peel, is
extracted and sprayed on styrofoam, the
styrofoam will be dissolved before your eyes
in a few seconds as shown in figure 1."
<http://www.sony.net/Products/SC-HP/cx_news/vol09/pdf/cxeye.pdf>

This is a very, very long way from tea with lemon dissolving styrofoam
(actually expanded styrene - Styrofoam is a brand name). Trust me, you
don't want a mouthful of limonene. Nor acetone, nor gasoline nor any
other hydrocarbon that can dissolve it. And all the regulatory agencies
that have any say in food safety for the public accept it as safe for
the uses designed for.

Not one caution against tea with lemon from any manufacturer or agency.
or any other food or beverage...

Pastorio

David Wright wrote:



BZZZZT! Wrong answer dummy. *ALL* cow milk contains BGH.






Nutrients? Like animal protein that causes an acid condition that
leaches bone calcium? Or like the poor calcium to magnesium ratio that
makes cow milk a poor source of absorpable calcium for people?

Better learn a little something about the subject before you spout off.

try http://www.notmilk.com

Milk does not leach bone calcium. There is some evidence that soda pop
phosphate does.

Cow milk has the same calcium/magesium ratio as human milk. This ratio
does not effect calcium absorption. If it did, human babies would not
survive.

SBH

BGH doesn't get into milk. What does, is the secondary hormone which
BGF induces, called IGF-1. However, all milk contains IGF-1 (including
normal cow and human milk), and r-BGH treatment of cows increases
normal levels of IGF-1 so little that it's hard to tell the difference,
except statistically (ie, the mean difference is far less than the
normal statistical spread in IGF-1 levels).

Incidentally, the issue is sensitive because although BGH is different
from human GH, the IGF-1's of humans and cows are identical.

SBH

<banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote:
so, "banmilk", even cow's milk sold as organic cow's milk still has
BGH?

Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com wrote:


gee Harris, I guess when MONSANTO admitted to an 80% increase in IGF-1
in their 55,000 pages of documentation on the matter they must have
gotten it all wrong?

Whadda ya think? Think they got it all wrong after $500 MILLION spent
in research?

George Lagergren wrote:

Harris sez "no",......but the point is that if BGH is in rBST/rBGH milk
then it is in *all* other cow milks too.

I would find it difficult to believe that both natural bovine growth
hormone and the recombinant bovine growth hormone would not end up in
the milk, given that milk by it's very nature is the nutritional,
immunological, and growth promoting (hormone laden) food for the new
born.

Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com wrote:

The very first study done on milk calcium funded by the dairy industry
showed that the study group remained in negative calcium balance in
spite of milk supplementation.

It stunned the industry. EVERYONE had assumed that since dairy carries
a high load of calcium that it would be naturally a good source of
absorpable calcium.

Since then the industry has been very careful in designing studies that
will show what they want shown, not what really is.




Harris, your post reveals you to be an idiot. It is well established
that the mg/ca ration of 1:2 is optimum for good absorption to the
bone. The is ratio is most closely met in green leafy veggies.
Baby bones, in case you hadn't noticed aren't appreciably bigger by the
time baby is weaned. In fact before baby is weaned, baby is already
taking nutrition from other food sources.

You should sue the medical institution that trained you Harris.

"George Lagergren" <gel44@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Z5pwe.13405$pa3.5575@newsread2.news.atl.earth link.net...
Perhaps he has lactose intolerance or just plain stupid.

You mean like the fact that low-fat milk is a healthy food and good source
of calcium.

Jeff

Jeff wrote:

Perhaps he watched too many customers with diabetes, strep throat,
colds, flu, constipation, irritable bowel syndrome, cancer, plugged
arteries, and oodles of greasy fat hanging from them in rolls to want
to follow the herd.







Jeff, *all* milk is a good source of calcium but *all* milk is a poor
source of absorpable calcium.

Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com wrote:
Banmilk:
gotten it all wrong? Whadda ya think? Think they got it all wrong after
$500 MILLION spent in research? <<


ANSWER/ COMMENT:

No, there's no conflict between the two facts, since normal levels of
IGF-1 in cow's milk vary by 500% depending on age of the cow, number of
calves, time since pregnancy, and so on. An increase of 80% may well be
lost in the noise, and in fact, it is.

been treated with growth hormone bST so they could reject the milk. If
it was a matter of just testing the milk's IGF-1 levels to see if it
had, it would be easy to do. You'd just test the milk, and if the IGF-1
level was high you'd act like the Olympic Committee and go and kick
some butt. Unfortunately, that can't be done. It doesn't work.

The E.U., for example, has banned bST, not for the health of humans,
but due to arguments about the health of cows (and some ag politics as
well). The E.U. would like to catch cheaters, but they can't do it by
merely testing milk IGF-1 levels, because they are lost in the noise.
Even with additional tests of the milk to try to correct for the time
since pregnancy and age of the cow, they miss something like 40% to 70%
of experimentally treated cows (I'll post an abstract showing their
travails). So even knowing these correction factors for high IGF-1
levels, it can't be done.

As I've pointed out before, however, no matter how high milk IGF levels
are, they pale beside the normal levels in your blood and your gut
secretions. Milk IGF-1 levels would be typically 3 ng/mL. However,
normal human blood levels are around 200 ng/mL. If you must compare
unbound hormone, IGF-1 concentrations run 0.9 nM in saliva (multiply by
conversion factor of 7.69) which is 6.9 ng/mL --- above the mean of
milk, though probably not beyond normal milk limits. Gastric juice and
pancreatic juice (of which you make liters/day) run about 3.5 nM = 27
ng/mL which is well above what you find in anything but colostrum. The
jejunal chyme which is enriched by IGF-1 secretion by small bowel cells
has IGF-1 levels of 24.6 nM = 189 ng/mL, a level comparable to plasma
levels, but all unbound hormone. This is more than 60 times the level
found in milk. To worry about the stuff in milk when the levels in your
own gut juices (whether you drink milk or not) are 60 times higher, is
pretty nutty.


Regul Pept. 1994 Feb 24;50(2):113-9.

Insulin-like growth factor I in human gastrointestinal exocrine
secretions.

Chaurasia OP, Marcuard SP, Seidel ER.

Department of Medicine, East Carolina University, School of Medicine,
Greenville, NC 27858.

Insulin-like growth factor I (IGF-I) is the mediator of growth hormone
dependent
growth. The peptide has been identified by radioimmunoassay in a number
of human
exocrine secretions of the gastrointestinal tract including (nM):
saliva 0.9,
gastric juice 3.5, jejunal chyme 24.6, pancreatic juice 3.6, and bile
0.9. The
identification of IGF-I in pancreatic juice was confirmed by HPLC. The
intravenous injection of 1 unit/kg secretin increased pancreatic juice
IGF-I
content from a basal level of roughly 4 nM to nearly 20 nM. Conversely,
the
IGF-I content of bile was unaffected by secretin. Radioligand blot
analysis of
samples of gastric juice, jejunal chyme and pancreatic juice
demonstrated that
these fluids contained no IGF binding proteins. Thus, unlike IGF-I in
serum,
IGF-I secreted into the gastrointestinal lumen is not bound to
insulin-like
growth factor I binding proteins. Since the growth factor is not
protein bound,
its concentration in the gut lumen may be high enough to exert
biological
activity.

PMID: 8190912 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]




Analyst. 1998 Dec;123(12):2429-35.

Increased milk levels of insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1) for the
identification of bovine somatotropin (bST) treated cows.

Daxenberger A, Breier BH, Sauerwein H.

Institute for Physiology, Research Centre for Milk and Food,
Freising-Weihenstephan, Germany.

The present EU moratorium banning the use of bST to increase milk yield
implies
the need for official controls. Our study aimed to identify milk from
bST
treated cows via the induced increase of insulin-like growth factor 1
(IGF-1)
concentrations. A non-extraction radioimmunoassay for IGF-1 was
improved and
thoroughly validated for milk. Accuracy was 99% recovery in a fortified
sample
material, the precision was 5.1% intra-assay variation and 13.4%
inter-assay
variation. Parallelism was proved by a dilution experiment which
yielded a
regression line with a slope (-0.7%) not significantly different from
zero (P =
0.534). Naturally occurring milk IGF-1 levels were recorded in 5777
random milk
samples from the Bavarian dairy cow population. In samples from
lactation week 7
to 33, the effect of somatic cell count (SCC), protein content and
parity could
be quantified and corrected; thus a normal distribution (-0.068 mean
+/- 0.440
s) of the corrected logarithmic IGF-1 levels (corr ln IGF-1) was
obtained. IGF-1
concentrations occurring in milk from bST treated cows were recorded in
33 Brown
Swiss cows treated once with rbST (POSILAC). Mean corr in IGF-1 levels
increased
by 0.828 and 0.477 in first parity and older cows, respectively. Thus
60% and
29%, respectively, of the positives could be detected at a 95%
probability. If
our results are confirmed in experiments with more bST treated cows and
with
prolonged treatment intervals. IGF-1 measurements might be useful to
monitor for
bST application in milk samples.

PMID: 10435273 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

"Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com" <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:1120349623.650624.308020@o13g2000cwo.googlegr oups.com...
Thank you. This is a wonderfully concise explanation of the realities of
milk IGF-1.

--Rich

Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com wrote:






Harris, of the 500,000 ng of IGF-1 found in the human body, all but
approximately 2200 ng (level dependent on age) is bound to proteins and
is therefore INACTIVE.