Anyone know why brazil nuts in shells have reappeared in the supermarkets ? I know they were "banned" due to carcinogenic moulds on the shells.
- posted
12 years ago
Anyone know why brazil nuts in shells have reappeared in the supermarkets ? I know they were "banned" due to carcinogenic moulds on the shells.
And being radioactive ?
Brazil nuts, avocados and bananas are about the most radioactive foods because they all concentrate potassium and one isotope is very weakly radioactive. See banana equivalent dose (tongue slightly in cheek)...
Seaweed collected from near Sellafield, formerly Winscale, formerly Calder Hall is probably a lot more dodgy in this respect. Renaming ceremonies follow each nuclear MFU.
Windscale, not Winscale...
Everything with carbon from CO2 absorption is weakly radioactive too. Like our bodies and all vegetables and plants. C14 is continuously made by cosmic rays.
Also, Brasil nuts contain about 1000x as much Radium per gram as other foods do.
It was stated on QI that a pocketful of Brazil nuts would trigger a leak detector at a nuclear power station ...
Time to shoot those Brazilian nuts.
They were not banned, but it became compulsory to test them for the toxin produced by the mould, which priced them off the market. Presumably, the economics have changed in the six years or so since that happened.
Colin Bignell
I know that consumption of Brazil nuts is an effective way of increasing selenium intake [3]. And that at least some people who feel the need to do so would probably prefer them in shell so they are less likely to have been treated with anything.
And a couple Brazil nuts is a cheaper way of getting adequate selenium [1] that buying the tomatoes fed with selenium [2] that M&S have been selling this year.
[1] Actually two kernels can have more selenium than you need. [2] You would actually have to eat quite a lot of these tomatoes to get sufficient selenium if i is your only source. [3] Selenium is used in the body to form three selenoproteins known to their friends as D1, D2 and D3.On 16/11/2011 19:26, polygonum wrote: ...
I prefer them treated with chocolate.
Colin Bignell
So long as it is good quality dark chocolate, I absolutely agree. :-)
Remember Trevor McDoughnut (aka Lenny Henry) reading the news about 20 years ago:
"The Government has announced that Windscale is to be renamed Sellafield.... and also that nuclear radiation will now be known as 'magic moonbeams'..."
David
I'm not sure if that is correct, but an ordinary WW2 prismatic compass would.
When I did talks to the general public I used to monitor a box of ordinary potash fertiliser from a garden centre to show that this would be classed as "Nuclear Waste" and could not be transported off site, even to another nuclear facility, without fairly extensive paperwork.
Almost *anything* is better with chocolate.....
keep doing those talks.
Here's another headline for you
"Renewable energy linked to 3000 cancer deaths a year"
That being the death rate from skin cancer caused by exposure to solar radiation, the driver for all renewable energy. (I'll grant you that tidal and geothermal are classed as renewable, and only geothermal is [partly] nuclear in its original power source).
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.