FYI: Toxic Squash Syndrome

[DougW]

you can skip to 1:30

[KenJongIll]

On like the 3rd date ever with my wife we made a last minute casual date for sushi.
Soon after finishing, before we left the restaurant she started getting welts and trouble breathing. So we end up in the ER. She almost shit her hospital gown in front of me, but made it to the toilet.
Scromboid it was.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[stfu&gbtw]

mad cow disease didn't get your memo

You're aware that mad cow disease isn't caused by angry cows, right?

[jono]

https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/06/13...emselves-11415

That article is comedy gold. Even in a forum with 3 gun threads that one stands out as likely peak of irrelevant statistics. Thanks for posting!

[Game Over]

No bullshit there. Bruce Ames the guy who did the study is a genus. If you have any information to share that contradicts this I'd love to see it. Methinks ya don't...

I also assume you must be a organic food quack. I'm sorry science does not support your views.

Vibes.

[wooley12]

EAT SHIT AND DIE

Has a ring of truth to it, no?

[Game Over]

Absolutely ->shit is the main nitrogen source in organics.

[KQ]

Maybe you should stop watering your garden with the run off from Hanford.

LOL! I'm downwind not down river but yeah, samey samey I guess. It's all one big radioactive, Glyphosate 2,4-d stew!

[stfu&gbtw]

That article is comedy gold. Even in a forum with 3 gun threads that one stands out as likely peak of irrelevant statistics. Thanks for posting!

Denying chemistry is no different than denying climate science.

[iceman]

I'm a physics denier.

[jono]

I'm not denying the facts Ames stated, far from it. What makes it stand out as a pinnacle of achievement in the field of irrelevant statistics is that most of the stated facts are obviously true. They just don't mean what the author is implying they mean.

Consider this: water becomes toxic to the human body if you ingest enough of it--but we wouldn't call it "highly toxic" because generally speaking it's not toxic to us. According to Ames we eat 10,000 times more organic pesticides than synthetic. And yet someone is buying all those synthetic pesticides. Evidently because the natural ones aren't doing the job on their own. Even though there are 10,000 times more of them.

The obvious conclusion is that while we eat a large number of things that are technically pesticides, the natural ones aren't terribly strong. Something like, 1/10,000th as strong as the synthetics, maybe?

The article reads like someone describing all the hazardous materials in the ocean without bothering to mention their concentrations. The facts sound super impressive. But there's nothing there without the other half of the story.

Don't bother trying to find some reason why I must be biased against the poor guy or his conclusions, I'm not. The worst thing I have to say about his conclusions is that if that piece is actually genius then the art of finding just the right audience to target with it must have been a master work.

[stfu&gbtw]

I'm not denying the facts Ames stated, far from it. What makes it stand out as a pinnacle of achievement in the field of irrelevant statistics is that most of the stated facts are obviously true. They just don't mean what the author is implying they mean.

Consider this: water becomes toxic to the human body if you ingest enough of it--but we wouldn't call it "highly toxic" because generally speaking it's not toxic to us. According to Ames we eat 10,000 times more organic pesticides than synthetic. And yet someone is buying all those synthetic pesticides. Evidently because the natural ones aren't doing the job on their own. Even though there are 10,000 times more of them.

The obvious conclusion is that while we eat a large number of things that are technically pesticides, the natural ones aren't terribly strong. Something like, 1/10,000th as strong as the synthetics, maybe?

The article reads like someone describing all the hazardous materials in the ocean without bothering to mention their concentrations. The facts sound super impressive. But there's nothing there without the other half of the story.

Don't bother trying to find some reason why I must be biased against the poor guy or his conclusions, I'm not. The worst thing I have to say about his conclusions is that if that piece is actually genius then the art of finding just the right audience to target with it must have been a master work.

This is what we call "making shit up". If you're aware of a paper that substantiates a single one of these assertions, please post a link.

[jono]

This is what we call "making shit up". If you're aware of a paper that substantiates a single one of these assertions, please post a link.

Um. Wut? I'm just accepting the facts as quoted by steepconcrete, first page of thread, and following them to the logical conclusions based on the information provided. If you want to disagree with them go ahead; they might be bullshit for all I know, but steepconcrete says they're not, so that's good enough for me.

[stuckathuntermtn]

I've never gotten peeling skin or pain on my hands from any of the plants mentioned in that article beyond the prickly things on cukes. Both storebought and homegrown.
This is a thing?

[Toadman]

Well, CRAP! I've got some fresh bought Butternut Squash in the oven, right this very minute...To eat or not to eat, that's the question!

[stuckathuntermtn]

I think you'll be fine.

[stfu&gbtw]

Um. Wut? I'm just accepting the facts as quoted by steepconcrete, first page of thread, and following them to the logical conclusions based on the information provided. If you want to disagree with them go ahead; they might be bullshit for all I know, but steepconcrete says they're not, so that's good enough for me.

You'd make a stronger argument if your cognitive deficiency could be correlated with a documented history of eating unwashed vegetables.

[KQ]

I've never gotten peeling skin or pain on my hands from any of the plants mentioned in that article beyond the prickly things on cukes. Both storebought and homegrown.
This is a thing?

Yes. I has happened to me esp. with my home grown that I pick and eat the same day. If you let it sit for a period this won't happen. Can't tell you when I picked them - if it was early or late. I believe the one article talks about under ripe fruit being more prone to it.

Well, CRAP! I've got some fresh bought Butternut Squash in the oven, right this very minute...To eat or not to eat, that's the question!

You'll know when you eat it if something is off. Seriously as Stuck said you'll more than likely be fine. I eat a ton of Butternut both homegrown and store bought an this was the first time it has ever been weird. I def. tasted different.

[stuckathuntermtn]

Gotchya

[jono]

You'd make a stronger argument if you wanted to argue.

FIFY. I do love me some cognitive dissonance, though. Have you ever encountered an example of someone who understands his or her material really well and supports an absolutely correct position but does it really badly? There could be a couple examples in this thread. I just noted the one.

[stfu&gbtw]

FIFY. I do love me some cognitive dissonance, though. Have you ever encountered an example of someone who understands his or her material really well and supports an absolutely correct position but does it really badly? There could be a couple examples in this thread. I just noted the one.

Maybe lay off the gluten too...

[Toadman]

Still alive and kicking after last night's meal of roasted butternut squash and roast chicken.

[abraham]

Bump for new symptoms

Crop cropping

Doctor Philippe Assouly reported that two women in France were separately poisoned by toxic gourds, suffering standard gastrointestinal distress directly afterward. But days later, they experienced substantial hair loss, too.

The first woman got sick immediately after eating very bitter pumpkin soup, suffering nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. Then a week later, she started losing chunks of hair from her scalp and pubic area. Her family had also had some of the soup and initially got sick, but they didn’t eat as much as she did and didn’t experience any hair loss.

Similarly, the second woman ate a meal with her family that included squash. While her family skipped the squash because it tasted bitter, the woman ate on—and experienced “severe vomiting” an hour later that lasted for hours. Three weeks later, she too lost large swaths of hair from her scalp, armpits, and pubic region.

Months later, some hair had regrown on both women. The hair that hadn’t fallen out showed signs of breakage and weakness.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2018...bitter-squash/

[KQ]

Bump for new symptoms



https://arstechnica.com/science/2018...bitter-squash/

Crazy! Thank goodness I didn't have the hair loss issue but next time I get a squash that tastes less than normal I'll pass.

[frorider]

https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/06/13...emselves-11415

Ames’ statements aren’t exactly wrong per se, just written in a broad brush manner that potentially misleads. Here’s a short article that makes similar points more correctly:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...a-gray-matter/

In recent years my career has required a background in food safety & toxicology.

As the SA article notes, there are other reasons (eg pesticide runoff in waterways) to emphasize ‘organic’ food. However, re: risk to humans via ingestion:

It would be wonderful if it were simply a black versus white topic.
Unfortunately, the natural versus synthetic debate falls very much in the gray region, and each and every chemical, or class of chemicals, must be considered on a case by case basis. To make the situation more frustrating, the number of useful and accessible resources for consumers is limited, since the majority of the “information” on the internet and in the news is unfounded and unreferenced