Eytons' Earth: Natural & Alternative Medicine

[eytonsearth]

Here is a brief example of what to expect when ozonating ( especially ) beef and chicken:



In this case, two ozone generators are used in a standard ceramic sink. The first ozone generator ( 3% ozone ) is attached to a typical ( but far less effective ) granite diffuser. The second generator ( ~ 7% ozone ) is a attached to a wide-face granite diffuser ( recommended ). 3 small beef tips are ozonated for twenty minutes.



After five to ten minutes, matter starts to eject from the beef. The matter is a combination of organic and inorganic material. The matter, insoluble, sits on top of the water. A small sample is collected:



We use a highly scientific term to describe this matter: Yucky Gunk.

At first, it appears that this yucky gunk might be fat. However, after burning it under a hot flame for a few minutes, it's obvious that there is no fat. The material doesn't burn, and the smell is enough to make one pause the next time one orders a steak at a steak house.

In fact, the material is composed of pesticides, petro-chemicals, antibiotics, and other largely undesireable material.

Bottoms up!



<center><br>
Ozonating Eggs prior to cooking</center><br><br>
Supporting material ( view links for test data, look for the studies on the right side of the screen ):

http://www.top-ozone.com/product02.htm

Also, view other topics in this forum for further information.
_________________
~ Jason

Learn about the benefits of Colloidal Silver & ozone therapy & ozone generators.

[silver_lover]

I got to witness the results of this process once, and it is a moment that still makes my stomach churn. Bleech. The smell of the yucky gunk is so obviously "plastic" that it still makes me want to hurl. If there is anything that would make me re-think eating meat, it's the stuff that comes out as a result of this process.

I need to get myself one of these generators!!!
_________________
Alisa McAffee,
Waterbirth Supplies and Labor Tub Rentals in Las Vegas, NV
Web Design & Optimization Services

[Lynn]

This was quite interesting but I wonder if you got/would get the same results using organic beef? Was the gunk scientifically analyzed for actual content or was this by observation and smell?
Thanks, Lynn

[Lynn]

Ok, my screen didn't have the info on the right but I did follow your link and got the info I needed.

Thanks,
Lynn

[eytonsearth]

Greetings everyone:

For those of you interested in ozonating your food and water with a correctly engineered system, units are now available:

(these units are no longer available, but there are many systems out there)

Best Regards,
_________________
~ Jason

Learn about the benefits of Colloidal Silver & ozone therapy & ozone generators.

[squid]

It is clear by going to the link you provided, that the ozone reacts with the fat from the chicken, causing ozonated fat to be dislodged from the flesh (according to their lab testing, 10g of fat was removed for every 100g of flesh). It seems likely to me that the smell described is due to the reaction of the ozone with the chicken fat, and not due to the antibiotic content of the fat.

Furthermore, the fact that ozonating chicken fat makes it smell like plastic is a clear warning to me that I should not consume a chicken that has been ozonated. If I really had no choice, other than to eat a non-organic, fat chicken, I would mechanically seperate the fat from the chicken with a knife, or by boiling the chicken. This process would also remove any chemicals, since animals store toxins in their body fat.

I'm just going to stick to organic foods though, so that none of these needs to be a concern to me. I suggest anyone else do the same and prevent the problem at its source, rather than trying to correct a problem chicken, with more potentially problematic methods.

Being introduced to this concept of fat removal by ozone has increased my interest in the subject though; for instance, I always wondered how manufacturers made lean ground beef. I always knew instinctively to stay away from that crap. It turns out that they either use a chemical to melt away the fat, or ozonated water, as was shown here.

Thank you for the intro.

[squid]

I would like to also mention.

It is a shame it has come to this. Animal fat is not only a store for toxins, but a store for many healthy vitamins and nutrients. It is a shame that such a beneficial nutrient source has been contaminated to the point where people are forced to strip it out of their diet.

[eytonsearth]

Hi Squid:

Of course you are entitled to your opinion, although in my opinion, it is not very well presented.

I would ask that you not present deflection as fact and then ask the users of this forum to follow such advice. It is dishonest. And while I fully support a well-intentioned debate and I believe that individuals only grow when ideas are challenged, the challenge should be sincere, and not designed to support an ideology or belief... Let us let ideas stand or fall upon their own merit; that way, interested viewers are getting complete authenticity from a debate, devoid of politics and ideology.

For example, you state that the fact that plastic can be smelled tells you that you shouldn't ozonate meat. You fail to present a balanced view; laboratory testing shows that the petro chemicals, via ozonation, have been removed from the meat.

Furthermore, I purchase organic meat at great expense; I still ozonate it. If animals are drinking from an above ground water source and breathing the air, then they are still taking in a measure of chemicals. Organic foods are NOT chemical/contaminant free, they only have reduced levels.

It is critically important that individuals learn and experience for themselves the difference... or have people been unwisely neglecting the state of the food supply in the world over the next twenty years?

I predict that ozonation will one day be a key component in organic vertical farming methodologies that may one day present the only hope for nutritional freedom... and if not nutritional freedom, then in preventing our species from becoming extinct.

It's too bad that you aren't more open minded or at least local... I could take you to a restaurant (five star chef) that serves only freshly ozonated foods. You might walk away with a different opinion after talking to the clientel, store owners, and experiencing the food itself.

Kind Regards,

Jason
_________________
~ Jason

Learn about the benefits of Colloidal Silver & ozone therapy & ozone generators.

[squid]

I don't think meat producers actually use this fat seperation method. I've read a little more on it, and it turns out that the process for creating lean ground meat is entirely mechanical. They select lean parts of the animal before grinding. In order to keep their animals lean, they inject them with growth hormones.

[eytonsearth]

Hi Squid:

Yes; there are those who are proponents of using ozone during packaging for food. This should not be done; food should only be ozonated just prior to eating. The ozone breaks down other substances, which then becomes an easy food source for microbes.

Also, you misunderstand if you think ozonation destroys all the fat. I ozonate my meats for between five and seven minutes. There's plenty of fat left over.

Grass fed beef ozonates much better than feed-fed beef. There is far less oxidation.

Best Regards,

Jason
_________________
~ Jason

Learn about the benefits of Colloidal Silver & ozone therapy & ozone generators.

[squid]

Hi Jason,

I'm fully open to whatever conclusion is drawn from all this, once all the pertinent questions are answered.

I wouldn't have started this conversation if I wasn't interested in your opinion, so thank you, and try not to be discouraged if you can't convince me of your interpretation of the facts right off the bat. I'm here to search for a better understanding, not to sell anything.

I have to admit, your initial post bothered me, for the very reasons you express for being bothered by my post.

Your comment: "the smell is enough to make one pause the next time one orders a steak at a steak house."

After convincing the reader that this substance was definitely not fat, you make a further qualitative attempt to disgust the reader, giving thereby bigger impact to your claim. This is shear marketing tactic. First you call it "yucky guck" => then you convince the reader of what it is composed => then you describe how bad it smells.

This bothered me most of all, because it worked on me; and I don't like to be mislead in such a way. Even if what you said did turn out to be true, you are making an attempt to emotionally impact the reader through a tactically misleading interpretation of the evidence, and it does not feel good to be a victim of such intent.

Just because a substance, when undergone a chemical change, smells bad, does not make it bad. Try burning hair for instance. A totally organic compound, that smells aweful when chemically altered.

You interpret the facts in order to convey your own beliefs, rather than addressing the questions the facts raise. Initially, upon reading it, you had me convinced, but then upon going to the facts link you provided, it became clear that you are misrepresenting the laboratory results by presenting your interpretation as conclusive evidence, which can be more dishonest and misleading than if I was to just give my outright opinion.

For instance:

"At first, it appears that this yucky gunk might be fat. However, after burning it under a hot flame for a few minutes, it's obvious that there is no fat."

A highly misleading statement, considering that oxidized fat, and fat are not the same compound. So why would we be testing for "fat" in that white substance? Any fat, that is still "fat" is attached to the chicken in its original form. Any "fat" that left the chicken has undergone a chemical change, or it wouldn't have left the chicken. Is ozonated fat also combustable? I don't know, but you didn't offer any evidence to substantiate such a claim after already misleading the reader into believing that he should be testing for "fat".

To further the unrepresented claims you state:

"In fact, the material is composed of pesticides, petro-chemicals, antibiotics, and other largely undesireable material. "

Maybe this is true. But the link you have given to the test results do not substantiate this claim. Your other reader above "Lynn" had the same concern. In the link, only the antibiotics from the chicken are measured.

And I have the same question as Lynn, because I am very interested in understanding the truth of this experiment. If you were to ozonate a chicken that had pristinely clean fat deposits, would you get the same results?

I agree, organically raised animals are contaminated by mercury, lead, and other heavy metals in the environment, but I doubt they are anywhere nearly as contaminated as inorganically raised animals. In fact, I wouldn't mind seeing some laboratory confirmed test results on this. Regardless, have you done this experiment on meat from organically raised animals? What is the result? Do you still get the smell?

Keep this in mind:
According to the labratory evidence, 10% of the entire chicken mass was lost to fat alone after ozonation.

[squid]

OK. So lets say you convince me that this process of fat/toxin elimination is perfectly safe.

What makes ozonation better than mechanically separating the fat, or , simply boiling the fat off the meat?

Also, in response to my worry about taking fat out of the diet, you stated that some fat is left on the meat. But I still don't understand how this is an advantage. The fat contains the toxins, right? So toxins are removed from the meat, by removing the fat. The more fat you remove, the more toxins you remove. Is this not then just a question of balance? I have to reduce the fat quantity in order to decrease the toxins, but I have to increase the fat quantity in order to increase the nutritional benefits of the fat. How do I get the best of both worlds?

Also to address your concern of organically raised animals. Just how toxic do you think the fat is in these animals? Nutritional research is in its infancy right now, but lets say we determine that animal fat is a crucial food source for our bodies dietary needs, and that we need significant quantities of it? Then what would you do?

Let me express my beliefs.

I think the toxin levels in organically raised farm animals is probably at a tolerable level. And I believe that animal fat content in one's diet is more important than many people realize. I also believe that most foods are toxic to some degree, and always have been, even before we started polluting our ecosystem. I think it is a good idea to make every reasonable attempt to eliminate toxins from our diet, but that we should not get too extremist and try to eliminate anything with a toxin; or we will do so at our own detriment. Not all foods are either good or bad. Sometimes you have to take the bad with the good.

[squid]

Also, an unrelated observation on the evidence page you linked to. The test results regarding vegetable pesticides compares the pesticide levels of an unwashed vegetable with that of a washed, ozonated vegetable. Where is the comparison to a washed/un-ozonated vegetable? This appears rather careless.

I would have liked to have seen this comparison, because I'm somewhat curious as to how ozone could remove chemical residues from a surface. But I am aware of how washing with water can achieve this effect.

[squid]

OK. This study shows that ozonation breaks down the pecticide molecules on the surface of vegetables, for the specific pesticides listed: methyl-parathion, parathion, diazinon and cypermethrin


<link removed because it couldn't be posted>


Sounds promising...

I have to admit though, when I found out about sterilization through ozonation years back, I was creeped out by the idea of molecules that are toxic to life floating around the room, potentially sterilizing the surface of your skin and lungs, and other surfaces. What is this obsession of sterilization about anyway? Aren't microbes supposed to be our friends? I have to admit, I have a strong immune system and I don't get sick, so I may be strongly biased toward those who have strong immune systems, but isn't this a bit extreme?

That image in my mind of these deadly molecules floating around the room killing microbes always haunts me. Its part of the reason that I could never allow myself to get close to one of these ozonation machines.

[squid]

Sorry I made so many posts,

I just thought of a question I always had about pesticides and vegetables.

Don't the pesticides get inside the vegetables? Or do vegetables discriminate as to what they absorb through their root systems?

Just curious.