Hal Levin wrote:
> What is the conclusion or implication you draw from the experiment?
> Do you use wood or plastic? Where did the salmonella go to if they were no
> longer present on the wooden cutting board? The air? Other food being
> prepared on the board?
>
The conclusion was that the salmonella was no longer present on the
cutting board - the implication is that the cutting board is safe for
further use - as in the preparation of food to be consumed raw
Hal Levin wrote:
> BTW - I avoid meat, including poultry, thereby reducing my potential
> exposure considerably, regardless of the material from which my cutting
> boards are made. I also do a lot for the environment, perhaps more than I
> can do by consulting on environmentally responsible building practices,
> since the production of meat is so land and water and nutrition intensive
> relative to what it yields and compared with other nutritional sources.
My favourite agricultural conservationist Wes Jackson has some
interesting comments on what forms of husbandry have been
environmentally irresponsible. Based on his research on historical soil
loss the best practices of the historically most responsible farmers
(some midwest religious group; Quakers or Amish) has still resulted in
more soil loss than the all the cumulative grazing of cattle on native
prairie grasses.
Conclusion? I still won't buy a big mac
Implication? Always room for fresh thought.
Hal Levin wrote:
> Did I fail to offend anyone yet? Let me
> know and I am sure I can think of something.
Not yet
John Salmen
TERRAIN E.D.S.
terrain@seaside.net
__________________________________________________________________
This greenbuilding dialogue is sponsored by Oikos (www.oikos.com)
and Environmental Building News (www.ebuild.com). For instructions
send e-mail to greenbuilding-request@crest.org.
__________________________________________________________________