Eytons' Earth: Natural & Alternative Medicine

[squid]

I found this quote off the internet to answer my question:

"a study done by the environmental working group which includes some foods that they use according to the USDA standards, they found that apples on average have 92 percent of pesticides inside of the fruit"

[eytonsearth]

Hi Squid:

You seem to have missed the whole point of ozonation: The pesticides etc. are oxidized; they are hydrocarbons, and once the ozone oxides them, they are no longer harmful chemicals.

Whether or not all of the substances are actually ejected from the food is not relevant; what is relevant is that the once existing toxic chemical is no longer a toxic chemical. Testing shows that the fat still on the meat does not contain any of the pre-existing chemicals.

Some things are broken down by ozone into harmless molecules; others are neutralized via oxidation; still others are forced to out gas via the process of ozonation (such as chlorine).

In some cases, the ozone penetrates into vegetables/fruits. However, I doubt that ozone can, for example, penetrate deeply into citrus fruits. But the research I am familiar with is not surface testing, but whole-product testing. It wouldn't be worth the trouble if the ozone did not penetrate into the food; surface cleaning is easily done more affordably with other methods.

[eytonsearth]

Again, Squid:

Take a plastic water bottle or any other form of standard plastic, and burn it... That's what it smells like. That's a simple observation.

When you burn the substance that is ejected, the partially oxidized fat sizzles off quickly...but the petro chemicals left behind only ooze and then solidify. I don't see any problem with that statement in my post.

When I was still trying to utilize standard meats purchased at major grocery store chains, most people wouldn't be able to stay in the kitchen while I ozonated the meat. Even without burning the material, the smell could be quite disturbing... Again, only because the Ozone is reacting with man made chemicals used with the animal.

[eytonsearth]

Squid:

To contrast the point, we tested New Zealand Lamb rack against standard USDA Grade A beef...

...you don't get any of the smell when treating the New Zealand Lamb, although I still believe the ozone does have effect on the lamb (but the meat is so clean it is difficult to notice the effect).

[eytonsearth]

Squid:

And lastly, the post I made in this forum is not a scientific treatise; it is my personal expression shared for those who might be interested. I didn't present the post as a scientific paper.

I have a talent with the written word; if I had wanted to, I could have painted a far more grim picture, and been completely honest... I just wanted to get a point across since I can't invite everyone over to experience it themselves.

People should be disturbed by what is a 100% reproducible fact: When the body finally is able to recognize the chemicals as toxic, the human body is instantly repulsed by it.

I don't do alot of ozonation of fruits and vegetables these days (mostly due to laziness)... I buy organic when possibile... But meats? Totally different story.

[squid]

Thanks Jason,

This is very helpful.

These answers bring more clarity to your initial post and make your initial dlaims more convincing I think.

I appologize. I'm obviously not very well researched in ozonation. I am employing a lazy-man's tactic of getting as much answers as I can to make up my mind on the subject by questioning your experiences before (or rather than) diving into the daunting task of deciphering the research on the subject.

Given your experience, I would be inclined to make the same hypothesis as you as to the source of the smell. But I'm still not convinced as to whether that "yucky guck", as you called it, is not primarily made up of oxidized fat. Also, I'm not convinced that ozonation will break down all existing pesticides or just particular ones. The one research paper that I've read so far only looked at 4 different chemicals used as pesticides. And to further the discussion on the effectiveness of this ozonation process, I'm not sure how effective it would be on braking down other toxins. For instance, the lab results you referenced measured certain antibiotics in the residual matter coming off the chicken. This, to me, shows that the ozonation did not break down the antibiotics. I wonder if it would break down growth hormone? And of course, no reaction is going to break down harmful elements, such as lead or mercury, because they are already in their most basic form.

Also, how was it determined that these residual chemicals that result from braking down the pesticides are not also harmful? I had this question when I read the research paper. And who's to say that certain pesticides, when broken down won't result in a more harmful chemical than the pesticide?

You seem to have the belief that ozonation will be an important process in the fight against harmful substances in our food source in the future. I'm not so sure it is the cure-all solution. If the fat content of all animal food sources is completely contiminated, then I'm not sure this ozonation process would be able to break down all toxins in the fat.

Your comment:
"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. "

To me, I believe we need to clean up our act at the source. I don't think you can prevent our species from becoming extinct by ozonating our food. If ozonation did happen to be a completely effective solution to cleaning our food of toxins, it would still only be able to clean the food after it had been harvested/slaughtered. This would do nothing to protect the survival of the food source itself.

I get the impression that you are resigned to the possibility of humans correcting the damage they have done to the environment, and embracing alternative methods of coping with that damage. I don't want to adopt such an outlook because by focusing on methods of coping with this damage (such as ozonation), we are avoiding the primary issue, which I think can be dealt with head on.

Picture this: The consumer decides that toxins in their food chain are no big deal, because they can then remove them by various processes, which forces the producer to use toxins in the food chain in order to keep his prices low and sales up (since the consumer doesn't mind the toxins being there)

The above picture is why I don't think consumers should be lead to believe that toxin removal is a solution. Someone like you, with high standards is still inclined to buy organic. But most people with think "Oh, I can remvoe the toxins, so it is redundant to buy organic."

[eytonsearth]

Hi Squid:

Great points and comments.

First, you need to realize that there are only a very, very few substances that ozone doesn't break down:

Glass, Teflon, 300+ Stainless steel, stable illuminosilicate clay complexes, and substances such as Kynar. There are no organic or inorganic complex hydrocarbons that resist ozone used for soils, drugs, or pesticides.

But you are right there are issues that haven't been tested or demonstrated. For example, ozone's ability to penetrate semi-solid substances. There is also the issue of applying enough ozone to dislodge, disrupt (via oxidation) or break down contaminants without applying so much ozone as to also start to break down proteins, etc.

Relatively speaking, that which is more susceptible to oxidation will react with ozone prior to substances less reactive.

Furthermore, organic antioxidants resist ozonation, which means that the ozone will not first attack these organic molecules. Simple ozonation (wthou pressure) of green tea, as an example, doesn't effect the tea very much, if at all.

Although very few nutritional studies have been done studying pre-ozonation and post-ozonation nutritional values, the ones that I have viewed were exactly what I would expect them to be; so I have no reason to believe that I'm sacrificing anything but a few extra calories via ozonation.

Also, for your information, the most dangerous form of metal are in nascent states. As such, they are subject to oxidation. One benefit of oxidation of metals is it makes them heavier, and thus easier to manipulate.

There are many, many reasons I believe at this time that humanity is not going to choose to change behaviors that lead to self-destruction (chronic illness) and environmental toxicity. Just look at the sales figures for WalMart, McDonalds, and Burger King.

The majority of people are too poor to even begin to think about such things, and most of the power brokers in the world right now are intent on controlling wealth, not increasing it.

Also, you must realie when visiting projects that I am associated with, you are going to be getting into areas that few people are researching or exploring; that is my specialty. If you are looking for mainstream science where special interest organizations have a lot of money to twist science in their favor, you've come to the wrong the place!

I have solutions for water quality and soil quality, the biggest problem has been finding solutions for air quality.

Ozone is the single, only, viable solution for air quality. Vertical farming is the single, only solution that can place the power of health back into the hands of the small community. Most of these ideas are too expensive at the moment to implement, and there is much further research that does need to be done.

But regarding my comments about ozone and protecting humanity, it has to do with enclosed, 0-carbon footprint systems of farming, where the air is cleansed and enriched with normal levels of oxygen, and the water is purified with filtration and ozonation, and then remineralized, and soil is cleaned and processed, then enriched with the proper organic substances.

And lastly, oxidized fat burs, and continues to burn until it is just an ash. And the smell of cooking flesh and melting petrochemicals both have very, very distinct smells; one cannot be mistaken for another, unless one has not previously smelled both.

Best Regards,

Jason