On Wed, 7 May 2008, beelzibub wrote:

> Andrzej Rosa wrote:
>> Dnia 2008-05-06 Tom Anderson napisa?(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

WE KNEW THAT.

tom

--
Pave the world