Good reason to start practicing what I preach…

Well ever the skeptic; the sample of children was not big enough in both number and diversity.

Also there is no background info on any of the “Preschool” children to give any kind of accurate result.

What do I mean? Its like this, if you are going to test for toxins, dependant on food intake, you first take samples for one year, to determine a baseline. Incase the levels naturally vary dependant on things like rainfall affecting how deep the well water is taken, and so on. The other is that every home is different, some people are more or less carfull about the use of sprays and so on, but the actual building materials also contain the same chemicals.

Another big factor is were there any smokers in any of the houses used in the study? I’m sure that could affect the results.

In short a bad testing methology, an inaccurate sampling method, and no background data.

Also how many were being breastfeed as opposed to bottle? The breastfeeding women could have been causing the difference in the levels by passing through the milk etc.

So I say that whole thing is flawed.

I’m not saying that organics are not going to reduce organophosphates in the urine, but this study proves nothing.

Good food is good, no matter what.

I could go on on this subject for years, and this “study” is likely to cause more damage than good, as it is so easy to poke holes in the methods they used.

A better sutdy would be to look at the food itself and determine how much of the chemical is in the food, have a well documented test subject eat the food and then loock at the subjects wast products and look for the pass through rate and compare it to the retention in the blood, the fat, the liver, the kidneys, and hair after a settling period.

As you might have noticed I get really annoyed at bad science practices passed off as “proof” of some theory or other, where the methology is not sound.

Blessed be. BFG

If you cut me do I not bleed?

If you wrap lies in the truth are they still not lies?

If you say the name LaVonne, do I not blush.

I’m not a scientist.

But I do like to hear your name, it just gets me all a’quiver with excitement.