Andrzej Rosa wrote:
> Dnia 2008-05-06 Tom Anderson napisa³(a):
>> On Tue, 6 May 2008, Omelet wrote:
>>
>>> In article > ,
>>> Tom Anderson > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 5 May 2008, (David P.) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Tom Anderson > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> #2 was about how keeping milk in a transparent container leaves it
>>>>>> vulnerable to light. If the author hasn't realised that the light goes
>>>>>> off when you close the fridge door, ...
>>>>> Don't you think they were referring to when the container is left out on
>>>>> the table during the meal, exposed to light?
>>>> No, actually, i think it was referring to storing dry foods in transparent
>>>> containers on the worktop. After the initial mention of milk, that's what
>>>> the article talks about.
>>>>
>>>> I do think this is all hokum, though.
>>> No, it's not. especially if you use fluorescent fixtures or bulbs like
>>> many do now. There is more UV and it DOES influence some vitamin
>>> content.
>> You show me someone who's got rickets because fluorescent lights destroyed
>> the vitamin D in their milk,
>
> They should get a suntan first, and it so happens, that vitamin D is
> synthesized in the skin, so IF fluorescent light destroys vit D in the
> milk, it will synthesize it in your skin.
>
> What a bunch of concentrated nonsense, but funny.
>
>> or a population in which the frequency of
>> rickets, or any other malnutrition disorder, has increased because of the
>> use of fluorescent lights, and i'll take my statement back.
>>
>> Until then, i maintain that it's hokum.
>
> Of course it is, but mainly because UV is absorbed by normal glass.

.... no! it omly *seems* that way.in reality, the light is absorbed
ans refracted to a new dimension.

b
ps;
this is true
>