Organics ARE chemicals

fabfun

fabfun

New Member
doc111 said:
Now THAT is fucked up! Is that the same stuff that they drizzle over your movie popcorn or is it just microwave popcorn. I imagine it's all the same, but I LOVES me some movie popcorn dripping in butter! This really bums me out.:cry:
Click to expand...








Facebook•ESPN•ABC

Hot Topics:

  • Apple Juice
  • •
  • Pat Robertson
  • •
  • Emmy's









  • More Health:
  • Dr. Richard Besser
  • GMA OnCall
  • Juju Gets Fit
  • Childhood Obesity
  • Spirituality




ABCNews.com> GMA> America's Health>GMA OnCall

Popcorn May Cause Lung Disease



 http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/OnCall/story?id=3565670&page=1#


http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/OnCall/story?id=3565670&page=1#
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/OnCall/story?id=3565670&page=1#
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/OnCall/story?id=3565670&page=1#


Share


45 Comments
Print
Text Size
- / +









Sept. 6, 2007



Many people love the buttery smell of microwave popcorn, but the savory aroma has recently been linked to a lethal lung disease in factory workers who make the popular snack.
Now, the first-known case of the illness has turned up in a man who consumed large amounts of popcorn. Popcorn fanatic Wayne Watson ate about two bags daily, but now he has quit because of the havoc it reeked on his lungs.
Watson had all the symptoms of a rare disease dubbed "popcorn lung," which derives its name because it was found in popcorn plant workers exposed to a flavoring ingredient called diacetyl. Diacetyl is a natural substance heated in a factory setting to give microwave popcorn its buttery taste.
While Watson initially didn't recognize the symptoms as popcorn lung, when he began speaking with a doctor who had done research on the disease, she suspected he might be suffering from the disease.
"She said, 'Are you ever around butter-flavored microwaved popcorn?' I said, 'I am microwave popcorn,'" Watson said.


Cecile Rose of the National Jewish Medical Center in Denver had studied the disease and wondered whether there was a consumer connection. She knew the symptoms.
"The very small airwaves called the bronchials become blocked by scar tissue and inflammation," Rose said. "You cannot blow air out."
The disease normally affects popcorn factory workers who inhale large amounts of the chemical's fumes. Some workers have died from it and many have needed lung transplants to survive.
To determine whether Watson had the same disease, Rose sent an industrial hygienist to Watson's home and he made a startling discovery.
"In your home microwave, you're seeing similar levels [of diacetyl] to what we've seen in microwave popcorn manufacturing plants," industrial hygienist Michael Van Dyke told Watson.


Industry Reaction


Even before Watson's case became public, the popcorn industry had started taking swift action.

Last week, Indiana-based Weaver Popcorn became the first company to announce it would remove the flavoring ingredient from its product.

"There had been such a consumer response that we felt it necessary to actually inform consumers that we had made the change," Weaver Popcorn CEO William Weaver.

And though the industry pointed out massive amounts of diacetyl are involved in the cases and their products remain safe, on Wednesday three more companies that produce some of nation's most popular brands said they'd change their formulas too.

Consumers can expect the change to arrive on store shelves in the next year.


More from ABC News


From Around the Web


[What's This?]









http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/OnCall/story?id=3565670&page=1#


Email
Print


http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/OnCall/story?id=3565670&page=1#
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/OnCall/story?id=3565670&page=1#
Share





http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/OnCall/story?id=3565670&page=1#top
Comment & Contribute
Do you have more information about this topic? If so, please click here to contact the editors of ABC News.


Welcome to ABCNews.com.
Javascript is not enabled on your browser. Please enable javascript to use the community features on this page. If your browser does not support javascript, please visit our browser upgrade page for a list of supported web browsers.

View All Comments (45)

gummibearfreek
10:25 PM EDT
Jul 26, 2011

the other comments mentioned this, but i just wanted to reiterate: it's "airways" NOT "airwaves"it's "bronchioles" NOT "bronchials"it's "wreaked" NOT "reeked"i'm not even a copy editor and i think it's absurd that a national news source wouldn't catch these...

cynthiakwr
9:32 AM EST
Feb 05, 2010

My name is Cynthia from Marion, OH. The 10TV News station out of Columbus, OH Reporter Anietra Hamper has updates regarding the Bronchiolitis Oblterans (Lung Disease) and the butter flavoring Diacetyl. Did you know companies are still using this and over 100 people have died from this flavoring. Anietra has just gotten back from Washington DC to get Congress and OSHA to get these companies to stop using this flavoring. I myself worked at ConAgra and have this lung disease from working there. Log on to 10TV website and view the TV report from last night, there's another pc. airing tonight www.10tv.com. Note: You need to let consumers know that this is still a danager to them. We are only reaching the central Ohio area. Thank you. Cynthia

kmd_diva
12:48 AM EDT
Mar 14, 2008

Havoc was not "reeked", rather is was "wreaked". Good golly, ABC, get it right!!!





View All Comments (45)
Watch Mornings on ABC


Watch the Full Episode
GMA: Turtle Set Free


Robin Roberts Recommends







ABC News on Facebook









Follow GMA

Twitter
Facebook
Mobile
RSS












ABC News Newsletters


E-mail Address

Select Newsletter
Breaking NewsGMA Daily FlashGMA Recipe Mail20/20Politics/This WeekWorld NewsNightlineThe Blotter Alerts



More Newsletters »












Today in ABC News
ABC News Home »











External links are provided for reference purposes. ABC News is not responsible for the content of external Internet sites. Copyright © 2011 ABC News Internet Ventures.
Back to top

Sections

  • News
  • Politics
  • Investigative
  • Health
  • Entertainment
  • Money
  • Technology
  • Travel
  • Recipes
  • Behind the Scenes

Shows

  • Good Morning America
  • World News with Diane Sawyer
  • Nightline
  • This Week with Christiane Amanpour
  • 20/20
  • Primetime
  • What Would You Do?
  • ABC News Now
  • ABC.com

Tools

  • iPad App
  • Mobile
  • Register
  • Sign In
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Blogs
  • Emails & News Alerts
  • Message Boards
  • RSS Headlines

About

  • Contact Us
  • Feedback
  • Advertising
  • Privacy Policy
  • Interest-Based Ads
  • Terms of Use
  • ABC News Store
  • Site Map




 
hyroot

hyroot

Well-Known Member
I hate when people use imformation they don't understand and beat you with it like a stick



Organic Matter Breakdown






This section contains four questions:
  1. Describe the stages in the breakdown of organic matter.
  2. Why do stems and leaves degrade at different rates?
  3. What is mineralisation of organic matter?
  4. What is the C:N ratio of organic matter and why is it important?
Question 1: Describe the stages in the breakdown of organic matter.
Organic matter breakdown is not a single chemical transformation but a complex process. Break down of organic matter involves chemical alteration of organic matter, physical fragmentation and finally release of mineral nutrients. Organic matter break down is a biological process because it is the soil organisms (microorganisms, earthworms, microarthropods, ants beetles etc) that perform the chemical and physical changes. Different organisms are involved with the different stages of these processes.
Break down starts almost immediately after the organism, or part of it, dies. The organic material is colonised by micro-organisms that use enzymes to oxidise the organic matter to obtain energy and C. For leaves and roots their surfaces are colonised by microorganisms even before they die. Soil animals such as earthworms assist in the decompostion of organic matter by incorporating it into the soil where conditions are more favourable for deocmpostion than on the surface. Earthworms and other larger soil animals, such as mites, collembola and ants, fragment organic material increasing the surface area and allowing more microorganisms to colonise the organic matter and decompose it.
During decomposition the organic molecules in organic matter are broken down into simpler organic molecules that require further decomposition or into mineralised nutrients. The compounds in organic matter vary in the ease with which microorganisms can break them down. The first organic compounds to be broken down are those that are easy to break down, incluing amino acids and sugars. Cellulose will break down more slowly and phenols, waxes and lignins will remain in the soil for the longest time.
Question 2: Why do stems and leaves degrade at different rates?

Decomposing leaf Because they are made up of different kinds of molecules that require different enzymes for their degradation. · Leaves generally have more cellulose than lignin · Stems generally have more lignin than leaves · Cellulose is a simpler molecule which is decomposed more quickly than lignin · Cellulose tends to be a straight, chain-like molecule · Lignin has a complex, folded structure so the enzymes cannot break up the component parts quickly · When lignin is linked within the plant cell walls with cellulose, it makes it harder to degrade the cellulose. · After 10 weeks, most parts of leaves will have been degraded, but it may take about 30 weeks to degrade the same amount of stem material.
Question 3: What is mineralisation of organic matter?​
This needs to be considered in terms of carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus and sulphur. Mineralisation is the biological process where organic compounds in organic matter are chemically converted by the microorganisms in soil to simpler organic compounds, other organic compounds or mineralised nutrients. Bacteria and fungi are responsible for most of the mineralisation of organic matter in soils. Microorganisms release enzymes that oxidise the organic compounds in organic matter. The oxidation reaction releases energy and carbon, which micro-organisms need to live. The final end product of mineralisation is nutrients in the mineral form. Plants require nutrients to be in mineral form to take them up from soil. Therefore all nutrients in organic matter must undergo mineralisation before they can be used by again by living organisms. For example consider a protein molecule containing carbon nitrogen, phosphorus and sulphur. When microorganisms mineralise the protein molecule it may undergo several changes to simpler organic molecules before the carbon is converted to carbon dioxide, the nitrogen to ammonium, the phosphorus to phosphate and the sulphur to sulphate.
What is the immobilisation of nutrients?
Immobilisation of organic matter is the opposite process to mineralisation. In immobilisation, mineralised nutrients are incorporated into organic molecules within a living cells. The process of immobilisation is very important because it relocates mineral nutrients into pools within the soil that have a relatively rapid turnover time, making them available to plants and preventing their loss by leaching. Plants are generally not efficient at competing with microorganisms for mineral nutrients in soil.
Question 4: What is the C:N ratio of organic matter and why is it important?
The C:N ratio of organic matter means the amount of carbon relative to the amount of nitrogen present. There is always more carbon than nitrogen in organic matter. It is usually written as C:N and is a single number, because it expresses how much more carbon than nitrogen there is. For example if the ratio is 20, this means that there are 20 grams of carbon for each gram of nitrogen in that kind of organic matter. If the ratio is 100, it means that there are 100 grams of carbon for each gram of nitrogen. So if the number is low it means that the amount of carbon is reasonably similar to the amount of nitrogen. If the ratio is a large number, it means that there is considerably more carbon than nitrogen. The C:N ratio does not tell us what form the carbon and nitrogen are in, just how much is there. The C:N ratio is important because of what happens when organic matter is incorporated into soils. First, the larger organisms like mites and soil animals break it into smaller pieces.

Effect of adding straw to soil that has not previously received straw on plant growth. The pot on the left had legume organic matter added to the soil. The pot beside it to the right had fertilizer nitrogen added. The pot on the right had wheat straw added and the pot on its left had nothing added.
Then the fungi and bacteria start to decompose it (they secrete enzymes to break up the chemical compounds it is made of). When the enzymes have disrupted the compounds, the bacteria and fungi can use some of the parts released in this process as nutrients. For example, if the enzyme is degrading a protein, the microbe would be able to use the carbon, nitrogen and sulphur (if there is some) for its own cell wall structure and cellular contents. Excess nutrients to the requirements of the microorganisms are available for other soil organisms or plants to use. The microorganisms can access nitrogen in soil more easily than plants can, so the plants sometimes miss out. This means that if there is not enough nitrogen for all the organisms, the plants will probably be nitrogen deficient and nitrogen addition will be needed to meet the requirements of the plant. This is why incorporating organic matter into soils can change the amount of nitrogen (and other nutrients) available to plants. Incorporating organic matter that has a high C:N ratio will probably cause some nitrogen deficiency in the crops/plants, at least in the short-term.





http://www.soilhealth.com/biology/organic.htm


chem·i·cal/ˈkemikəl/

Adjective: Of or relating to chemistry or the interactions of substances as studied in chemistry.
Noun: A compound or substance that has been purified or prepared, esp. artificially


or·gan·icAdjective/ôrˈganik/

1. Of, relating to, or derived from living matter: "organic soils".
2. Of, relating to, or denoting compounds containing carbon (other than simple binary compounds and salts) and chiefly or ultimately of biological origin





chemical changes does not mean its a chemical. it means it's dna structure has changed
 
C

Cesaro

Well-Known Member
Pretty sure Organics feeds the soil through microbes, and fungus, where chemical pretty much destroys that ecosystem, and replaces it with harsh chemicals.

Why is it so hard to burn plants with organics, and not with chemicals?

I don't think you understand what you speak OP.
 
Matt Rize

Matt Rize

Hashmaster
doc111 said:
Now THAT is fucked up! Is that the same stuff that they drizzle over your movie popcorn or is it just microwave popcorn. I imagine it's all the same, but I LOVES me some movie popcorn dripping in butter! This really bums me out.:cry:
Click to expand...
sorry bro, I didn't know about this until fab got me interested. nom nom nom. i make my popcorn on the stove top.
 
Da Almighty Jew

Da Almighty Jew

Well-Known Member
wait who cares about that, this thread is organics Are chemicals. btw organics are not freakin chemicals. im not going to do a vast reseach on this subject i will just use my common sense to know that this is bologna.
 
colonuggs

colonuggs

Well-Known Member
vegetables grown organically contain more nutrients...they say that our vegetables grown with ferts and chemicals to kill pests and diesese contain fewer nutreints due to lack of natural stress of the plants
 
bud nugbong

bud nugbong

Well-Known Member
i grew some tomatoes all organic and they tasted waay better then others that used MG...i could tell the diff with tomatoes, and im sure it makes a difference w smoke too.
 
poplars

poplars

Well-Known Member
bud nugbong said:
i grew some tomatoes all organic and they tasted waay better then others that used MG...i could tell the diff with tomatoes, and im sure it makes a difference w smoke too.
Click to expand...
yep same here man organic tomatoes are soo damn good... compared to those storebought pieces of shit.... I use half the amount of tomato and get 2x more flavor!

and I can vouche for sure that organic smoke is much smoother when grown right and cured decently.
 
Jesushasdreads

Jesushasdreads

Well-Known Member
Da Almighty Jew said:
wait who cares about that, this thread is organics Are chemicals. btw organics are not freakin chemicals. im not going to do a vast reseach on this subject i will just use my common sense to know that this is bologna.
Click to expand...
Chemistry at work man. us soil guys add things to our compost and soils just the same as a nutrient factory add things to their products to achieve the desired N-P-K micro and macro nutrient ratios. To say that this is any different is ludacris.

The real meat of this thread was meant to discuss whether medical industry claims from various dispensary workers that organics are a safer alternative to synthetically or chemically grown cannabis have any validity to them.

If you look at the total safeness of the entire life of a product from the time it is produced to the time that it is used in your garden until the point that the bud grown with that product reaches the end consumer there are numerous variables that people who have posted in this thread have overlooked. For example one should look at the manufacturing process of a given product. what effects does the production of a specific product have on our environment? All the soil/ organics folks are quick to blame a factory...but the truth is unless you personally collect your own peat, spagum, coco, perlite, vermiculite, compost, bone meal, blood meal, guano, ect..... there has been, at some point, a manufacturing process to bring that product to your garden. It was mined, processed, refined, transported, distributed, and sold again. If you have plastic containers.... you've already compromised your completely organic garden. What about synthetics? Many liquid fertilizers have ingredients that are concentrated or derivative forms of their "organic" counterparts. Does this process make the end result less safe for human consumption? OR are the laboratories and factories who manufacture these products doing more harm to the environtment than their "organic" counterparts? I would like to see a comparison in carbon footprints of these alleged "organic" companies vs chemical fertilizer companies. From supplier to manufacturing to distribution to retail to end user. I would hypothesis that, for the most part, this is just a part of the advertising hype to sell customers on a product that really is no safer or environmetally sound that anything else for the pure fact that it is labeled as organic or green.

Im not trying to bash anybody, but im just saying our "organic" supplies are not just dug from the ground with a shovel and put into a bag and magically appear at your door. The safeness of organics vs. synthetics involves more than the end product. Regardless or taste, potency, harvest amounts, ect is the end product any more harmful to the consumer one way vs. the other.

One last opinion here.....spray on fertilizers, fungicides, and insecticides are where my concern is. For example I dont trust that pyrethrium hasnt been applied to eradicate a spider mite problem in some growers' basements and end result is tainted bud.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top