>Justin Hasselman:
>I'd imagine that many Paleoithic cultures
>stuck their meat on a stick and held it over a fire.  And although >this
>isn't as  healthy as eating the meat in it's raw form, it's much >better
>than microwaving.

>Ray Audette:
>Cooking meat over an open fire is far more hazardous than >microwaving.
>The smoke coats the meat and is both eaten and inhaled >by the chef.

I guess I never thought of that possibility.  But how much smoke would be
inhaled?  I remember roasting marshmallows as a child.  Because the fire was
hot, I put the marshmallows on a long stick and sat a good 4 feet from the
fire.  At this distance, wouldn't the person would be out of range of
inhaling smoke?  As far as smoke coating the meat, you got me on that one.
But does the smoke coating the meat cause more toxicity or harmful effects
than a microwave?

>Ray Audette:
>This smoke contains many different known carcinogens and even >radioactive
>particles.

Justin:
What are some of these known carcinogens?  How are the radioactive particles
more harmful than that of a microwave?  Fire occurs in nature, microwaves do
not.

>Ray Audette:
>Even infrared radiation (heat) produced by fire causes molecular >changes
>similar to those caused by higher frequency radiation ( ask >Phil Thrift
>Ph.D.. - senior scientist at Texas Instruments).

I do not judge the quality of Phil's posts by his Ph.D. title or his senior
scientist status.  I judge the quality of his posts by the strength of his
argument.  There are many pioneers in the world that do not posses advanced
degrees (ex: Mike Mentzer's HD training principles, Ray Audette's book on
Paleoithic nutrition, etc.)


>Ray Audette:
>But even this the greater risk produced by fire pales in comparison >to
>such common things as living in a house made of brick or one with
> >plasterboard interior walls (Radon).

Justin:
Yes, I agree.  I feel much better being outside with fresh air and sunlight
than I do cooped up in a house.  Everytime I step outside, I can tell an
immediate mental boost from the oxygen.  At night, when the weather permits,
I often put a sleeping bag on the back porch and doze off.  My dreams are
much more vivid and pleasing when I have an optimal supply of fresh air.


>Ray Audette:
>Cooked meat is still far safer than raw due to the reduced risk of
> >bacterial contamination.  This risk of contamination is far less >serious
>for a hunter-gatherer's system ( I consider salmonella to be >a mild
>laxative) but still is uncomfortable enough to dissuade many >from adopting
>a slightly more natural diet.

Justin:
I'm going to challenge you on this.  Wouldn't this depend on the quality of
the meat?  I've been eating round steak raw for months now. Not once have I
shown symptoms of bacterial or parasitic infection.  The beef is very
healthy.  The cattle is pastured, receives full spectrum sunlight, exercise,
bugs, etc.  If the animal is in optimal health, then the chances of
bacterial/parastic infection are quite slim.  Others on the PF list have
been eating meat raw for years without any signs of contamination.


I wish you would post more often Ray.  Your posts always seem to direct the
discussion in a more productive direction.

Justin Hasselman
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com