Sunday, June 15, 2014
Look Who Is Lying To Scare Us
Consumers of organic food are also more likely to be attacked by a relatively new, more virulent strain of the infamous salmonella bacteria. Salmonella was Americaâ€™s biggest food-borne death risk until the new E. coli O157 came along.
Organic food is more dangerous than conventionally grown produce because organic farmers use animal manure as the major source of fertilizer for their food crops.....
The real surprise is that nobody is telling the public about the new dangers from organic food, or trying to persuade organic farmers to reduce these risks. Activist groups, government, and the press, all of which have shown no reluctance to organize crusades about matters such as global warming, tobacco addiction, and the use of pesticides are allowing organic farmers to endanger their customers without any publicity whatever." continued
And fairly recently we had an outbreak in Germany which proves it:
"A novel strain of Escherichia coli O104:H4 bacteria caused a serious outbreak of foodborne illness focused in northern Germany in May through June 2011. ....
Epidemiological fieldwork suggested fresh vegetables were the source of infection. The agriculture minister of Lower Saxony identified an organic farm in Bienenbüttel, Lower Saxony....
In all, 3,950 people were affected and 53 died...." continued
250 organic food deaths in the USA a year suggests 5,000 a year worldwide (this is pretty much seat of the pants because I am quite certain that far more people die that way in the 3rd world but don't realise they are eating "organic food" but merely think it is "food" so lets assume the same rate as the developed world. So over the last 25 years that is 125,000.
Compare that to nuclear power - Fukushima zero deaths; previous Japanese accident 2 deaths Chernobyl 51 deaths.
That makes organic food (125,000/53) 2,358 times more dangerous than nuclear. That should actually be "an absolute minimum of 2,358 times because (A) by including the date of Chernobyl we are bringing the average way up and we should also correct for nuclear providing 20% of the world's electricity while official organic is under 1% of its food so (125,000/2 X 20/1) 1,250,000 times more dangerous is equally defensible but lets not be churlish.
So we can say for certain that any anti-nuclear "protestor" who hasn't spent at least 2,358 times longer protesting against organic food in equally hysterical terms isn't remotely concerned about any alleged health threat but simply a Luddite lying.
Google on "Dangers of nuclear power" 4,360,000 items
" " "Dangers of Organic Food" 2,500,000 items (I must admit surprise the discrepancy wasn't greater but still, the nuclear one should only have been one thousand and sixty worldwide.