Notices
Results 1 to 43 of 43
Like Tree7Likes
  • 1 Post By Lynx_Fox
  • 2 Post By skeptic
  • 1 Post By Harold14370
  • 3 Post By Strange

Thread: How dangerous are eating caged chickens that are fed with chemicals?

  1. #1 How dangerous are eating caged chickens that are fed with chemicals? 
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    926
    This is what I've learnt after some research for caged chickens:
    1) Growth hormone are banned from use in Chickens.
    2) They grow so big so fast are because they are confined in a cage and grow fat super fast as they can't run around.
    3) Being confined in a cage for so long results in germs accumulating and they get sick easily.
    4) Chicken farmers feed/inject them antibiotics to make them more resistant against the germs.
    5) When we eat Chicken, we also ingest those Antibiotics.
    6) The reason they look so fat is because they are injected with salt water to look bigger and more appetizing.

    This is what i want to know:
    1) What after-effects will happen to me if i eat chicken that are grown with the use of antibiotics?
    2) What chemical/s does the antibiotics contain?
    3) Will the antibiotics harm me?
    4) Wouldn't it get destroyed in the stomach?
    5) How much antibiotics do they use/supposed to use?

    6) If it harms me, in what ways?
    7) What's the long term effect of eating chickens that grow with the use of Antibiotics?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    926
    doesn't anyone even know a single of the answers?
    Help please!


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    703
    Quote Originally Posted by ryanawe123 View Post
    This is what i want to know:
    ...
    4) Wouldn't it get destroyed in the stomach?
    ...
    Our body absorb them unrestrictedly. It doesn't filter and doesn't destroy them in stomach. This is good news if you eat chicken that eat good food, for example if you feed them with tuna then all the healthy protein found in tuna (example: omega-13) can be found in the chicken (and its egg!) and you get them too when you eat them chicken.

    Not sure what those antibiotic will do to our stomach. But IMO its better to be safe and not eat soo much of these chicken.

    FYI, antibiotic and chemicals are destroyed in our liver after a while. So it won't remain inside us forever.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    926
    okay thanks! but free range chicken are really expensive, and i cant breed chickens in my country.

    anyone knows the effects of antibiotics?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Northern Horse Whisperer Moderator scheherazade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Yukon, Canada
    Posts
    4,066
    The over use and improper use of antibiotics by humans and industry has long been a concern for it's speculated role in the increase of drug-resistance in bacteria. There is also concern that the effluent from agriculture and humans eventually finds it's way back into the water table. The following excerpt looks at another correlation of concern, drug-resistant bladder infections in women.

    These antibiotic-resistant superbugs are reportedly found in everyday retail chicken across the United States, and are infecting people, mostly women, in a variety of ways from handling raw poultry or eating foods cross-contaminated with E. coli.
    The majority of sites I have looked at state that proper handling and cooking of poultry and meat will kill these bacteria, and the industry has been using antibiotics in animal feed for decades now. Much of the food borne illness is caused by improper handling on our part so perhaps taking a food safety course might be a benefit for yourself and other persons with similar concerns.

    Alternatively, one can change their diet and only eat foods that they have confidence in. I have recently changed where I purchase my ground beef because it is now coming to our store prepackaged and I want to know precisely when it was ground because grinding exposes more surface to air and possible contamination. There are still some shops that grind the beef on location or that offer locally raised, grass-fed beef. Yes, it is more expensive, so I have reduced the portion size, yet that is also beneficial by current thinking.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    926
    haha thanks scheherazade
    Quote Originally Posted by scheherazade View Post
    proper handling and cooking of poultry and meat will kill these bacteria.
    Cooking kills the bacteria, but does it destroy/remove the antibiotics?
    If it doesn't wouldn't we ingest it?
    And if we ingest it, what effects does it have to humans?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    In short people worry too much. Cage chickens, open range chickens....they are both safe if handling, slaughter and transportation is well done. A lot more dangers once people get the meat home than at the market.
    Ascended likes this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    34
    Quote Originally Posted by ryanawe123 View Post
    This is what I've learnt after some research for caged chickens:
    1) Growth hormone are banned from use in Chickens.
    2) They grow so big so fast are because they are confined in a cage and grow fat super fast as they can't run around.
    3) Being confined in a cage for so long results in germs accumulating and they get sick easily.
    4) Chicken farmers feed/inject them antibiotics to make them more resistant against the germs.
    5) When we eat Chicken, we also ingest those Antibiotics.
    6) The reason they look so fat is because they are injected with salt water to look bigger and more appetizing.

    This is what i want to know:
    1) What after-effects will happen to me if i eat chicken that are grown with the use of antibiotics?
    2) What chemical/s does the antibiotics contain?
    3) Will the antibiotics harm me?
    4) Wouldn't it get destroyed in the stomach?
    5) How much antibiotics do they use/supposed to use?

    6) If it harms me, in what ways?
    7) What's the long term effect of eating chickens that grow with the use of Antibiotics?
    I doubt that, without scouring for actual studies, anyone is going to be able to really provide knowledgable answers to those questions. To put it simply though, it really depends on a lot of factors, some of which you allude to, and without knowing the quantity of a given substance, or the nature of that substance, it's really hard to say.

    For what it's worth, I personally am extremely skeptical of any claims that there is some overt danger; if there was an obvious causal relationship between significant effects on human health with those things, I'm sure it would have been observed, and said additives would have not have been used. It isn't in a food companies financial best interests to feed their customers overt poisons, not simply because they'll face lawsuits for the harm that they cause, but because of the fallout will drive away customers. What I mean is that if there is any effect, it's probably minimal, and dwarfed by the effects of a generally poor diet (completely organic or otherwise), a sedentary lifestyle, and any carcinogenic effect will likewise be dwarfed by the carcinogens you produce by simply cooking and burning your meat. And on the note of cooking, I'd imagine that it's fair to assume that the vast majority, if not all, antibiotics and hormones will simply be destroyed when they are put under sustained high temperatures.

    However, with that said, scheherazade is completely right that there widespread antibiotic use (in animals and humans) is a serious problem, and we're fast running out of effective antibiotics on every front. Another unfortunate reality is that there is little money to be made on antibiotics, so there is very little funding for the much needed research into discovering new classes of antibiotics (it costs billions of dollars and years-decades to get a drug through research studies and human studies, to approval). I suppose that when we resurgences of people dying from once easily curable infections, maybe the impetus will be there...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Western Australia
    Posts
    319
    cage chickens are usually solely for egg production. eating chickens grow big quickly because they have been genetically selected, not engineered, for optimum growth rates.
    Sometimes it is better not knowing than having an answer that may be wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    4,878
    Quote Originally Posted by ryanawe123 View Post
    doesn't anyone even know a single of the answers?
    Help please!
    Alektorophobia usually is characterized with feelings of anxiety that accompany an irrational and uncomfortable apprehension towards the fowl just from looking at it.

    If at the supermarket then avoid the poultry section.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    926
    ahhhh zinjanthropos ure make me uncomfortable. lol.

    Im working in a huge kfc store, and i cant eat outside food, i HAVE to eat chickens, and only chickens for my breakfast, lunch and dinner, and i come home to rest. now... i cant avoid eating it ._. or ill starve to death lol
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    926
    Quote Originally Posted by jocular View Post
    If thy right nipple offend thee, pluck it off! Goes for the other, too!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    I very much doubt you could eat enough chicken to get toxic levels of arsenic in your own system.

    An extract from your first link ....
    According to Hunt's analysis, arsenical chemicals like roxarsone have been in use since the 1940s, when chicken producers began adding it to chicken feed to speed up growth, prevent disease, and improve meat pigmentation.


    If you're concerned about this, it should really be on the basis of all conventional chicken farming using antibiotics to 'enhance' growth of chickens. The risk from arsenic is only a very long-term possibility of increasing cancer risk. I haven't even seen anything relating it to the incidence of any particular cancer. Whereas antibiotic resistance throughout the food chain and within humans is increasing our chances of finishing up in the same position we were in a hundred years ago with no effective antibiotic treatments for many bacterial diseases. The current problems with MRSA and highly resistant TB could become unmanageable if too many more antibiotics become less effective against a wider range of diseases.

    If you're at all concerned, you can simply make up your mind that, once you no longer work at KFC, you'll not eat any chicken but organically farmed birds for a few years or so thereafter to guarantee that your system has had maximum chance to process and excrete any possible arsenic accumulation. (I suspect that the metabolism of a person as young as you are now probably gets rid of such things more promptly than older people, so it's not too much of an issue anyway.)
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    42
    Often eat hormone -fed animals is very bad for our body
    For women, often eat these are harmful for uterus
    Both men and women can affect hormone secretion
    I love science , I love chemistry
    pva/silicon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    There is an unbelievable amount of pure bulldust on this topic. Let me summarise in two points.

    1. There is no human health issue.
    2. The issue is animal welfare, and antibiotic resistance.


    In other words, feel free to eat chicken all you like. Battery chicken, organic chicken, free range, antibiotic fed, or anything you like. As far as your body is concerned, it is all the same. It is as healthy or otherwise as all other chicken. Chicken fed approved antibiotics or other chemicals will metabolise those materials so that there is little or none left in the chicken meat you eat.

    However, you may be concerned about the welfare of the chickens on those chicken farms. Certainly, many are raised under less than humane conditions. You may also be concerned about feeding antibiotics to chickens so that bacteria become resistant, and this is a valid concern. But the meat from those chickens is just as healthy or unhealthy as any other chicken meat to your body.
    Strange and mat5592 like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    926
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    Chicken fed approved antibiotics or other chemicals will metabolise those materials so that there is little or none left in the chicken meat you eat.
    FDA finally admits chicken meat contains cancer-causing arsenic (but keep eating it, yo!)
    the FDA says its own research shows thatthe arsenic added to the chicken feed ends up in the chicken meat where it is consumed by humans. So for the last sixty years, American consumers who eat conventional chicken have been swallowing arsenic, a known cancer-causing chemical.
    Quote Originally Posted by jocular View Post
    If thy right nipple offend thee, pluck it off! Goes for the other, too!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    2. The issue is animal welfare, and antibiotic resistance.
    The welfare issue is cancelled by the industrial solution to medicine-free livestock: sick animals must live in pain or be destroyed.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by RamenNoodles View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    Chicken fed approved antibiotics or other chemicals will metabolise those materials so that there is little or none left in the chicken meat you eat.
    FDA finally admits chicken meat contains cancer-causing arsenic (but keep eating it, yo!)
    the FDA says its own research shows thatthe arsenic added to the chicken feed ends up in the chicken meat where it is consumed by humans. So for the last sixty years, American consumers who eat conventional chicken have been swallowing arsenic, a known cancer-causing chemical.
    Better quit drinking water too.
    Pfizer also notes that the "extremely low level" of inorganic arsenic the FDA detected in the liver of a 3-Nitro-treated chicken "is equivalent to the amount of inorganic arsenic found in an eight-ounce glass of drinking water."
    FDA Raises Concerns Over Arsenic in Chickens
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,910
    Surely, arsenic is natural so it must be safe, no?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    The welfare issue is cancelled by the industrial solution to medicine-free livestock: sick animals must live in pain or be destroyed.
    Antibiotics are not used in animal feed to treat illness. They're there to save money on feed. The animals grow faster and reach saleable size days or weeks sooner than when eating feed without antibiotics.

    That
    's part of the reason why organically farmed birds are dearer. The organic grower has to feed the animals longer to reach the same bodyweight on top of using more space to accommodate fewer birds than a conventional farmer does.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Arsenic is natural, of course. This does not make it non toxic. Arsenic is very toxic. However, like all toxins, this is a matter of dose. Most natural waters contain some arsenic, buty at levels too low to be the least bit toxic. Not always, of course. Arsenic in ground water in Bangla Desh is a major health issue there. However, in most of the world, arsenic in ground waters and in chicken is a non issue.

    To Adelady.
    Yes, rapid growth of standard chicken is one reason why organic chicken is more expensive. But it is a tiny part of the reason. In my local supermarket, an 'organic' chicken is twice the price of a standard chicken. I am not sure of all the reasons. I suspect the crowded conditions of some chicken farms is a more basic reason. However, in the interests of truth, let me state clearly. There is no health benefit to the consumer of eating organic rather than standard chicken meat. That claim is simply a swindle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Just to put it in perspective, the current EPA standard for water is 50 ppb, with a proposed reduction to 5 ppb.
    Proposed Revision to Arsenic Drinking Water Standard | Arsenic | US EPA
    The Agency is proposing to change the current arsenic standard from 50 parts per billion (ppb) to 5 ppb in drinking water.
    The amount found in chickens is 2.3 ppb, so that's still less than the proposed stricter standard for water.

    How Trace Amounts Of Arsenic End Up In Grocery Store Meat : The Salt : NPR
    The researchers documented 2.3 ppb — that's parts per billion — of inorganic arsenic (the more toxic type of arsenic) in the meat of chicken that had measurable levels of Roxarsone.
    By comparison, the meat from chicken that had no detectable levels of Roxarsone had 0.8 ppb of inorganic arsenic. That's three times less.
    But it's important to point out that these low levels are far below the 500 ppb tolerance levels set by the FDA.
    mat5592 likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    NPR accidentally added a zero to the tolerance, when converting millions to billions.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    There is another point which is always worth bearing in mind in relation to government standards of exposure to toxic materials. They tend to be very conservative. A typical standard might be to set a maximum that is 5 to 10% of the NOEL (the maximum level in which there is no effect observed) or 1% of the level known to be fatal to half of a test population of rats.

    To see how this works, look at that very well known toxin, ethanol. Many of us (me included) enjoy the odd glass of whisky or other spirit. Most such spirits are around 40% ethanol. The toxic limit for those drinks is 1.5 litres for a man and 1 litre for a woman. That is, that is the amount that, if consumed at a single sitting, will have a 50% chance of killing you. Yet 1% is only 15 mls. I can comfortably drink 10 times that amount in a sitting and wake the next morning feeling 100% healthy.

    The point I am making is that government limits are very, very conservative. If a toxin is consumed at levels even ten times the legal limit, it will probably not cause too much, if any, harm.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    I agree with skeptic, except that a few toxins are harmful in any amount. Lead is one example. While one may not notice the miniscule harm from a miniscule dose, this is not a toxin the body can dispose of up to any threshold. But in perspective, an insanely small dose of lead is doing less harm than normal aging, so if avoiding such exposure encumbers our quality of life it's not worth bothering about.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong View Post
    NPR accidentally added a zero to the tolerance, when converting millions to billions.
    Did they? A billion is 109, a million is 106.
    0.5ppm*1000ppb/ppm=500ppb. Right?
    CFR - Code of Federal Regulations Title 21
    Tolerances for total residues of combined arsenic (calculated as As) in food are established as follows:
    (a) In edible tissues and in eggs of chickens and turkeys:
    (1) 0.5 part per million in uncooked muscle tissue.
    (2) 2 parts per million in uncooked edible by-products.
    (3) 0.5 part per million in eggs.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    4,878
    I really like chicken and the effect on me from eating a cooked caged chicken (raw is not good) is usually an urge to eat more of them. I don't worry about how or why, just cook me a bird. If you worry too much about stuff then any number of mental illnesses can creep in and make you forget about caged chicken. Ever heard of Post Traumatic Poultry Disorder (PTPD)? If you have then you have definitely been fretting too much about caged chickens. I saw a farmer's field once, it was covered in shit, yet there in the middle of all that fecal matter he grew corn and then sold it at market for human consumption. Nightmares ever since, the thought of corn kernels stuck in my teeth, really depressing.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by EPA
    Proposed Revision to Arsenic Drinking Water Standard | Arsenic | US EPA
    The Agency is proposing to change the current arsenic standard from 50 parts per billion (ppb) to 5 ppb in drinking water.
    Quote Originally Posted by NPR
    How Trace Amounts Of Arsenic End Up In Grocery Store Meat : The Salt : NPR
    these low levels are far below the 500 ppb tolerance levels set by the FDA.
    Ah, I misread FDA as EPA. So they're different agencies, different standards.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    I just noticed the FDA limit is for "combined" arsenic, but the 2.3 ppb is just the inorganic arsenic, so maybe these numbers don't really compare.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    When the warning warns you to wash your hands after handling the food you intend to eat---
    I tend to eat something else.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    926
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong View Post
    I agree with skeptic, except that a few toxins are harmful in any amount. Lead is one example. While one may not notice the miniscule harm from a miniscule dose, this is not a toxin the body can dispose of up to any threshold. But in perspective, an insanely small dose of lead is doing less harm than normal aging, so if avoiding such exposure encumbers our quality of life it's not worth bothering about.
    yeap, the chicken has arsenic and wouldn't it be damgerous if we keep eating arsenic-fed chicken
    Quote Originally Posted by jocular View Post
    If thy right nipple offend thee, pluck it off! Goes for the other, too!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    wouldn't it be damgerous if we keep eating arsenic-fed chicken
    Not if we can excrete it without accumulation of any excess.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    926
    Is this statement true or false?
    Toxic chemicals are not dangerous for ingestion if they do not accumulate.
    Quote Originally Posted by jocular View Post
    If thy right nipple offend thee, pluck it off! Goes for the other, too!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,910
    Quote Originally Posted by RamenNoodles View Post
    Is this statement true or false?
    Toxic chemicals are not dangerous for ingestion if they do not accumulate.
    False. Only some poisons accumulate (lead and mercury are the examples that come to mind immediately). This means you can get a dangerous dose from very long term exposure to small amounts. Although, obviously, it may be possible to take in a dangerous or fatal dose in one go. (A single drop of dimethylmercury on the skin can kill you - actually not even on the skin, on the latex gloves you are wearing to protect yourself.)

    On the other hand, many toxins will not be accumulated by the body and so you would need to receive a dangerous dose in a short period of time.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by RamenNoodles View Post
    Is this statement true or false?
    Toxic chemicals are not dangerous for ingestion if they do not accumulate.
    It looks to me like you are looking for some absolute assurance of safety. Life isn't like that. Everything you do has some danger to it. If you don't eat anything, you'll die. If you eat something besides chicken, that probably has some danger associated with it too. Anyway, we're all going to die from something, eventually.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    926
    The Straight Dope: What's the fastest-acting, most lethal poison?
    Among the most insidious human-made poisons is dimethylmercury, which is readily absorbed through the skin even if you're wearing latex gloves. In 1996 Dartmouth chemist Karen Wetterhahn spilled a drop or two on her gloved hand; symptoms appeared about four months later and in ten months she died.
    im guessing it stayed in her body.

    but for arsenic, what compounds do chickens metabolize it to after ingestion?(or humans, when we eat minute amounts of it found in chicken meat)
    Quote Originally Posted by jocular View Post
    If thy right nipple offend thee, pluck it off! Goes for the other, too!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    There is a school of thought that believes that a total lack of toxins in our diet is also unhealthy. The human body responds to stress in a positive way - getting stronger. This is certainly true for pathogens. If you get no exposure to pathogens (germs) your immune system becomes weaker and leaves you vulnerable. A lot of scientists believe the same is true for toxins.

    'Normal' food contains toxins. Vegetables normally contain low levels of phytotoxins - chemicals that originated through evolution to protect plants from attack by insects. We breed vegetables to be less bitter in taste, which happens because they contain fewer toxins, but the toxins are still there, albeit in small amounts. There is a very good chance that we need those toxins to provide stress to strengthen aspects of our metabolism. If chicken contains low levels of arsenic, it may well be that this is actually heathy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    but for arsenic, what compounds do chickens metabolize it to after ingestion?(or humans, when we eat minute amounts of it found in chicken meat)
    You need to read some wiki for yourself on this one. (And no speed reading here - you might need to re-read some sections to get it all straight in your head.)

    To start with there's the difference between organic and inorganic arsenic compounds. Which is why there are different standards set for different forms in various foods and in water supplies and in drugs. Because ......... different molecules have different biological pathways, some of which can make a particular form more (or less) problematic than others.

    In your shoes, I'd worry a lot more about the problems of such a restricted, fried food diet for reasons other than the arsenic content.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    5
    Well first off, why would you want chemicals in your body. Chemicals can cause many issues such as cancer along with many other diseases. Chemically processed food is what can cause you to become obese because your body doesn't know how to break it down and there is just so so So much wrong with thinking that eating something like that is ok. There is no reason to not eat caged free chickens and eggs...if money is your concern, think about how much more expensive medical bills would be. This relates more to eggs but it is still very informative: The Truth About Your Eggs - ABC News
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,910
    Quote Originally Posted by bthatch View Post
    Well first off, why would you want chemicals in your body.
    Because you would die of thirst, hunger or malnutrition without them? I don't know about you, but my body is about 100% chemicals already; I like to maintain the present balance.
    Lynx_Fox, skeptic and adelady like this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Well said, Strange.

    Amazing how some people define the word "chemical". So many posters lack an appreciation of reality.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    2,222
    Quote Originally Posted by bthatch View Post
    There is no reason to not eat caged free chickens and eggs...
    Money, availability and lack of demonstrable health benefit would be three reasons.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    It's cheaper than alternative ways to raise chickens other than perhaps your own free ranging ones--or culling your own non-egg producers
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. The FED and the BoE
    By theQuestIsNotOver in forum Business & Economics
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: January 19th, 2012, 06:19 PM
  2. Sheep sex immigrant caged!!!
    By angelrose in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: November 23rd, 2009, 02:17 PM
  3. From Chickens to Dinosaurs?
    By gottspieler in forum Biology
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: March 25th, 2009, 10:30 AM
  4. Chickens and epigenetics
    By lackadaisical in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: August 29th, 2006, 01:02 AM
  5. Can Chickens fly?
    By AndrewM in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: December 14th, 2005, 08:43 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •