Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!olivea!oliveb!bunker!hcap!hnews!290!5!Dan.Payne
From: Dan.Payne@f5.n290.z1.fidonet.org (Dan Payne)
Newsgroups: misc.handicap
Subject: Re: aluminum
Message-ID: <16328@bunker.UUCP>
Date: 6 Dec 90 17:40:19 GMT
Sender: wtm@bunker.UUCP
Reply-To: Dan.Payne@f5.n290.z1.fidonet.org
Distribution: misc
Organization: FidoNet node 1:290/5
Lines: 41
Approved: wtm@bunker.UUCP

Index Number: 12409

 CB>"Abegg's textbook of Chemistry", (vol. III, Part I.), 
 CB>1892, Germany. 
 CB>"Aluminum in Food" British Ministry of Health, 1935. 
 CB>"Biochemical Journal", S. Judd Lewis, 1931. 
 CB>A three year test (1932-34) by Professor Prescott at the 
 CB>"Food Investigation Report" Department of Scientific and 
 CB>Industrial Research, London, England, 1948. 
 CB>"The Danger of Food Contamination by Aluminum", Dr. Le 
 CB>Hunte Cooper, Royal Army Medical Corps, Britain, 1932. 
 CB>"An Outline of Aluminum Pathogenesis", ibid, 1942. 
 CB>"The Clinical Aspect of Chronic Poisoning by Aluminum and 
 CB>Its Alloys" Dr. Leo Spira, Britain, 1933.  Dr. Spira 
 CB>"British Medical Journal" (16 April 1932) Dr. Coram James 
 CB>"British Medical Journal" (6 August 1932) Dr. E. H. Rink, 
 

Got any RECENT studies????  Just as a basically neutral observer, I
notice that your quoted materials range from 1892 to 1948, severely
dated to say the least.  any "new technology" is usually found to
be either a "cure all" or "the reason for all problems" when it is
relatively new.  Since there have been radical changes (to say the
least) in the making of aluminum products that would come into
contact with food, I would like to see some research that was done
in the last 10 to 20 years.  From a purely argumentative standpoint
(I take neither side of the issue here), I would tend to dismiss an
argument that was based on 40+ year old studies (the average
information seems to be almost 60 years old).  As I said, I am not
taking any side in the discussion, I just seem to thing that where
scientific evidence is being considered, taking into consideration
the changes in technology since 1892, your side would be better
represented with more recent information..

later

dan

--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!290!5!Dan.Payne
Internet: Dan.Payne@f5.n290.z1.fidonet.org