First I show that spirulina is nothing special as a chelation agent.

calcium does the same.

Then I am told, but there are so many studies! Because THE NUMBER OF STUDIES PROVES SOMETHING! HA HA

"what about chaga, it has things no other item has!"

So I look at the chaga study - and it's RUBBISH !

did you see the part where it says that it DOES NOT target cancer cells?

missed that part?

Like I said, did any of you hucksters read the details of the studies that you promote here, or just the summary where it makes bogus claims?


Then, I get this!

> Super foods are superior at preventing and fighting disease, boosting brain power, boosting athletic performance, detoxing the body, preventing aging, etc. Highly potent, highly condensed nutrition. This is in conjunction with an 100% raw food diet.

Back to the your broken record, just like I predicted.

your last post was claiming how chaga had things that no other "food" has!
cancer cure!

and then I show how absurd that study is, and that was the best study out there since it was in vivo and in vitro.

And then you STILL continue with the "but superfoods are good for...."

And you call ME delusional?

You think I'm being critical and negative ?

ROFL !!!!!


And the funny thing is, I just found out why people are so gullible regarding superfoods ! It's in the book I recommended recently.

there are 7 things that drive people, self preservation, mate retention, etc.

One of those was fear of disease - it's an old evolutionary drive based on ignorance of health - and now in the modern world it's a subconscious drive for special agents, and people fall for hucksters selling magic potions.

so YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHY YOU BELIEVE IN THESE THINGS! it's subconscious !

man this is rich.

>>>Reishi and the medicinal mushrooms all have proven immuno-modulatory effects so they might be helpful for someone fighting cancer or who has a weak immune system for example.

And yet it's NOT proven, just like that bogus study on chaga.
You just think it's proven .

It's called nutritionism. Are you a Dr of nutritionism?

Ben Goldacre wrote that nutritionism, or its attribution to scientists, is the "bollocks du jour", and that it is "driven by a set of first year undergraduate errors in interpreting scientific data."[4] In his opinion, professional researchers and medical experts bear some blame for nutritionism because they at times created unrealistic expectations about the potential benefits of their research, but that the primary promoters of nutritionism are health food manufacturers, self-proclaimed "gurus" and journalists who have an incomplete understanding of science, along with a credulous public that is willing to believe whatever simplistic theories they are told in the mass media.

[en.wikipedia.org]

Someone's jealous they can't afford super foods and don't have anywhere near the education as nutritionists. They're vastly more knowledgeable than you so you like to make yourself feel better by criticizing them. You sound like an angry nutritionist wanna-be who never made it. Just as a note for anyone who reads this, fresh likes to cherry pick studies that may have been sponsored by a supplement manufacturer and then claim that all super foods are scams for companies to make money (simply because he cannot afford them and is jealous of anyone else benefitting from them). He also likes to cherry pick data, like he did on spirulina and claim that it's not a super food because calcium can also reduce copper toxicity, even though spirulina is not touted as a super food for this reason, it just happens to be one of it's many, many benefits.

All information regarding chaga and reishi mushrooms, and various other super foods is proven, all it takes is a little dedication to research. I'll end on this note and then stick to what I said before and not waste my time arguing with a fool...

[www.chagamushroom.com]
[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]
[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]
[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]
[www.thescipub.com]

Chaga has a very high ORAC rating, betunilic acid, SOD, beta glucans, flavonoids, inotodiol, lanosterol, saponins, polysaccharides, trametenolic acid, triterpenes, and is an adaptogen. On top of that it has an abundance of vitamins and minerals.

Wow, took all of two minutes to find all those scientific studies regarding chaga. I could do this is countless super foods. As you were...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/04/2014 05:27PM by jtprindl.

[www.rawfoodsupport.com]

[www.rawfoodsupport.com]

Do you really need to continue this?
Are you a superfood salesman?
I see that you actually do not read the actual studies, just the summaries.
Just the chaga study alone CLAIMED that the medicinal tincture was not cytotoxic to normal cells. not even true.

I also see that you are unable to respond to the actual analysis of the study.
Do you think this serves your clients properly who depend on you ?

>Someone's jealous they can't afford super foods

you don't even realize how idiotic this statement is.

but of course it serves the purpose of attempting to divert attention from the matter at hand.

> and don't have anywhere near the education as nutritionists. They're vastly more knowledgeable than you so you like to make yourself feel better by criticizing them.

this post is about nutritionism not nutritionists - different letters at the end there.

> You sound like an angry nutritionist wanna-be who never made it.

Are you writing this from an insane asylum?

>simply because he cannot afford them and is jealous of anyone else benefitting from them

do you get visitors?

> He also likes to cherry pick data, like he did on spirulina and claim that it's not a super food
because calcium can also reduce copper toxicity

I said that it is not so very unique as a chelation agent as is claimed
but keep repeating something else if you want to.

>, even though spirulina is not touted as a super food for this reason, it just happens to be one of it's many, many benefits.

You figure the studies showing those benefits are BETTER than the chaga study?
Yes, I know you have so many other chaga studies. I'm sure they're all fabulous.
Maybe you should read them.

>All information regarding chaga and reishi mushrooms, and various other super foods is proven, all it takes is a little dedication to research.

Right - because the OTHER studies are good.
Anyone who says PROVEN has no clue about science.

>Chaga has a very high ORAC rating, betunilic acid, SOD, beta glucans, flavonoids, inotodiol, lanosterol, saponins, polysaccharides, trametenolic acid, triterpenes, and is an adaptogen. On top of that it has an abundance of vitamins and minerals.

ooh, look at all those fancy unpronouncable words to impress the gullible.

>took all of two minutes to find all those scientific studies regarding chaga. I could do this is countless super foods.

right, because LISTING studies PROVES something.

Here's the thing, fresh. Say you're on a raw food budget diet and your day's intake consists of two dozen large bananas, a few big heads of Romaine lettuce, a few glasses of tangerine juice and a dozen big expensive Medjool dates. That would amount to a little over 4,100 calories. There is just no way you are going to get enough calcium. You also would have a copper:zinc ratio of 2.1:1, would be severely short on oil soluble vitamin E and fats to deliver it all of which is needed to allow many hormones systems to function properly.

People who are on a low cost hclf raw vegan diet and don't have access to free food are very likely to run into big nutritional problems down the road if they can't afford the very pricey high calcium containing foods, etc., unless they keep track of what they are doing and get creative.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/04/2014 11:40PM by SueZ.

<<<There is just no way you are going to get enough calcium.>>>

2 Big Heads of Romaine Lettuce = 925 to 1234 mg of Calcium

The WHO only recommends 450 mg a day.

SueZ,

>Say you're on a raw food budget diet and your day's intake consists of two dozen large bananas, a few big heads of Romaine lettuce, a few glasses of tangerine juice and a dozen big expensive Medjool dates. That would amount to a little over 4,100 calories. There is just no way you are going to get enough calcium.

I guess you're talking about me since jtprindl stupidly kept harping on various aspects of my post like the $, even while not posting his own diet. The reason for me saying that was simply to explain that while I would prefer to have had more variety, that during that month I was somewhat limited as to the higher priced items . are you assuming that that is the case forever? now as to your calcium comment, that is typical of the nutritionism viewpoint. firstly many of the rda's are inflated. secondly populations have been quite healthy on what would in the west be considered a low calcium level. thirdly I have been tested multiple times and all my nutrients are fine. fourth, I have been perfectly healthy on my diet for 30 years. why is it that you question me, while you apparently, in your own words, have struggled with your health for so long?


> You also would have a copper:zinc ratio of 2.1:1

really , you know MY BODY and its assimilation. and you know the specific content of the food that I eat. wow. impressive.

>, would be severely short on oil soluble vitamin E and fats to deliver it all of which is needed to allow many hormones systems to function properly.

and HOW is it then that I actually AM functioning properly on this simple diet?
I know, I must be lying.

>People who are on a low cost hclf raw vegan diet and don't have access to free food are very likely to run into big nutritional problems down the road

how much further down the road than 30 years? more?

> if they can't afford the very pricey high calcium containing foods, etc., unless they keep track of what they are doing and get creative.

calcium containing foods? everything I eat contains calcium.

your whole premise is based on a flawed understanding of calcium needs and fat requirements and fat content of foods.

no copper/zinc ratio symptoms, by the way.


but thanks for sharing



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/05/2014 12:37AM by fresh.

Well one never know. Maybe someone will get something out of my post and prepare themselves and their families for incoming.

This is a good time to be calcium loading, IMO. Fukushima is an ongoing catastrophe and radioactive strontium will probably be more of a problem for those who have calcium deficiencies. This is also true in regards to the numerous other radioactive particles which will not be harmless to those who have mineral deficiencies.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/05/2014 01:23AM by SueZ.

[nutritiondata.self.com]
[www.whfoods.com]
[www.nlm.nih.gov]

Intake in healthy societies around the world ranges from 300mg and up.

fresh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Intake in healthy societies around the world
> ranges from 300mg and up.


Sure. Of course. Right.

>Sure. Of course. Right.



????

[nutritiondata.self.com]
Lettuce, cos or romaine, raw
Serving size: 1 leaf inner (6 g)

6 g!!!

Are you kidding me?

Can you say deceptive?

According to SueZ, there’s NO Calcium or Protein in Romaine Lettuce!!!

According to Jeff Novick…

“The calcium recommendations that you refer to (1200 gm) are for the average American women who is living on a diet that is high in many things that increase calcium excretion (which raises your need for more calcium) which include high animal protein, high salt, high sugar, caffeine, tobacco, alcohol, phosphoric acid, and lack of exercise.

So the question is how much calcium does someone who is living healthy need. Well, the WHO has set their recommendation at 450 mgs a day. While, no one knows exactly for sure who much you need, if you are living healthy, the 450 mgs a day is a safe estimate and one that can easily be reached on a healthy raw food vegan diet.”

So how much Calcium is in 2 BIG Heads of Romaine Lettuce?

There are 68 mg in 100 grams or ~3.5 oz. of Romaine Lettuce.

2 BIG Heads of Romaine Lettuce = 48 to 64 oz.

48 / 3.5 X 68 = 925 mg of Calcium

64 / 3.5 X 68 = 1234 mg of Calcium





Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 02/05/2014 03:18AM by John Rose.

Table 4.1

[whqlibdoc.who.int]

fresh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >Sure. Of course. Right.
>
>
>
> ????


Well... did you forgot to say where in the world these healthy hclf eating societies are and how they stay healthy on 300 mg of calcium and what their calcium food source is or something?

Another thing to wonder about if you don't grow your own lettuce is whether the soil our lettuce is grown in has clean calcium added to it as an amendment or have our supply field guardians switched to using toxic coal fly ash instead, etc.? We know the nutrition on labels, etc. are fictional in that they are representations taken from plants grown in optimal soils don't we? I think we do due to the source of the info. And when was that info updated, if ever?

not talking about hclf.
look at the chart.

Hey fresh,

Don’t forget that SueZ is an “old sedentary lady” so she NEEDS more Calcium than a healthy active woman.

well, there's a lot more than calcium to consider,
protein and vitamin d, etc

I wonder what a breatharian would think about all these food requirements.

In my personal experience on raw food, I have to come to realize that it was not much about nutrient X or nutrient Y.

But

The number one requirement
El requisito número uno
La première exigence
Die wichtigste Anforderung

IS THE PERFECT WORKING OF THE INTESTINAL FLORA



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 02/05/2014 05:19AM by CommonSenseRaw.

fresh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> not talking about hclf.
> look at the chart.


Oh, ok, I missed the chart as I must have been typing a new post when you posted it. I don't have time to do it justice tonight but I did do a preliminary speed reading of it and will risk saying a few things I probably shouldn't from that.

As I recall the latest on osteoporosis puts forward that it is less due to osteoblast insufficiency than to an osteoclast problem - which is huge and surprising, but, like I said, I'll have to go over that later.

Another thing I don't like is the comparison of hip fractures in east vs west which missed what I think is the main problem which is mostly due to the invention of the chair and western toilet.

Now even you have to admit, though, that the supposedly healthy societies as you call them are classified in the link chart as regions of the "far east" and "all developing". Ha ha ha. I wasn't expecting triangulated coordinates or anything to pinpoint exact destinations but really "all developing", lol.

John Rose Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hey fresh,
>
> Don’t forget that SueZ is an “old sedentary
> lady” so she NEEDS more Calcium than a healthy
> active woman.


LOL.

SueZ is right, fresh is wrong

“old sedentary lady” are always right

madinah Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> John Rose Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Hey fresh,
> >
> > Don’t forget that SueZ is an “old sedentary
> > lady” so she NEEDS more Calcium than a
> healthy
> > active woman.
>
>
> LOL.
>
> SueZ is right, fresh is wrong
>
> “old sedentary lady” are always right

Are you trying to say something, madinah?

>ow even you have to admit, though, that the supposedly healthy societies as you call them are classified in the link chart as regions of the "far east" and "all developing". Ha ha ha. I wasn't expecting triangulated coordinates or anything to pinpoint exact destinations but really "all developing", lol.


I was simply stating a fact. 300mg and up. coupled with no mention anywhere of some rampant osteoporosis problem in those areas. so how does that 1200mg recommendation look now?

focusing on nutrients is absurd. only the people who are not doing well focus on nutrients unfortunately. they presume that the reason they didn't do well on a diet was because of nutrients, when (other than b12) it was simply about getting a clean body and proper intake of simple foods.

people have problems with calcium becuase they piss it out. Their acidic blood (from animal products and milk) is literally buffered by their bones (calcium). Look it up in wikipedia. If you don't piss out the calcium, the dietary requirements are way way much lower. But they can also have problems with the parathyroid gland. The works of the parathyroid gland with calcium is explained at the end of the book "The China Study"



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/05/2014 03:05PM by Panchito.

> focusing on nutrients is absurd. only the people
> who are not doing well focus on nutrients
> unfortunately. they presume that the reason they
> didn't do well on a diet was because of nutrients,
> when (other than b12) it was simply about getting
> a clean body and proper intake of simple foods.


Fresh, when I first switched to a raw vegan diet from a vegetarian one, (I haven't eaten a SAD diet since the 1980's), I did not focus on nutrients at all and I wasn't taking any supplements. I wanted to give it a clean and fair try. When I went to hclf I set up an account for chronometer, which was a good suggestion I learned from Durianrider.

I did not sign up to study nutrients but to keep track of my calorie intake. I did not get interested in the minutia of nutrients until after being on a hclf diet for a full 11 months and my yearly extensive lab workup revealed that it would be wrong to continue on that diet one more day, even though I loved it and felt bouncing off the walls great at the time.

I had fully expected that my lab work was going to be stellar and was shocked at the results. I had become prediabetic, (with no family history of that even with several sad eating obese relatives), and my lipid panel tests and some others were awful.

I now, and for the last 10 months at least, take my blood sugar every day hoping Dr. Gabriel Cousens was right in his assurances that following his directions could lead to a cure and I can start eating more fruit again but that has not been the case for me. If I eat fruit my blood sugar still goes up. When I don't my fasting blood sugar stays in the 80's even though my fat intake is always between 60% and 70% and has been for almost a year now. So until fruit stops messing with my blood sugar so badly, if I want to remain raw, I have no choice to get the bulk of my calories from fat - which I was very leery of doing, BTW. I have a very long history of gall bladder problems which you can make fun of and blame me for that, too, if you want, I don't care.

So, in essence, I was surprised that a hclf diet really damaged my health,(even though I was feeling bouncing off the walls good to the very end), and that it also destroyed my skin quality and I was even more surprised that switching to a lchf diet is working out so well and I haven't had any gall bladder problems since I've been on the Conductivity Diet.

I focus now on nutrients because not focusing on them was stupid of me. Had I been paying closer attention I would have realized, for one thing, that I was taking in as much sugar sometimes at each meal that labs use as a glucose tolerance test. Doing that day after day after day was unwise, IMO. The only public people I see getting away with doing that are the ones who run, run, run, run, run and burn all the excess off before it catches them. Personally, I prefer to only run when I have to - as in when being chased by something evil which outside of my body.

My B-12 is fine though and always has been but just because it is I wouldn't dream of accusing people who have B-12 problems that it's their own fault...

I have yet to find a definition of Conductivity Diet.

RawPracticalist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have yet to find a definition of Conductivity
> Diet.


You may need to open your wallet, and become a subscriber of health

SueZ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > focusing on nutrients is absurd. only the
> people
> > who are not doing well focus on nutrients
> > unfortunately. they presume that the reason
> they
> > didn't do well on a diet was because of
> nutrients,
> > when (other than b12) it was simply about
> getting
> > a clean body and proper intake of simple foods.
>
>
> Fresh, when I first switched to a raw vegan
> diet from a vegetarian one, (I haven't eaten a SAD
> diet since the 1980's), I did not focus on
> nutrients at all and I wasn't taking any
> supplements. I wanted to give it a clean and fair
> try. When I went to hclf I set up an account for
> chronometer, which was a good suggestion I learned
> from Durianrider.
>
> I did not sign up to study nutrients but to
> keep track of my calorie intake. I did not get
> interested in the minutia of nutrients until after
> being on a hclf diet for a full 11 months and my
> yearly extensive lab workup revealed that it would
> be wrong to continue on that diet one more day,
> even though I loved it and felt bouncing off the
> walls great at the time.
>
> I had fully expected that my lab work was going
> to be stellar and was shocked at the results. I
> had become prediabetic, (with no family history of
> that even with several sad eating obese
> relatives), and my lipid panel tests and some
> others were awful.
>
> I now, and for the last 10 months at least, take
> my blood sugar every day hoping Dr. Gabriel
> Cousens was right in his assurances that
> following his directions could lead to a cure and
> I can start eating more fruit again but that has
> not been the case for me. If I eat fruit my blood
> sugar still goes up. When I don't my fasting blood
> sugar stays in the 80's even though my fat intake
> is always between 60% and 70% and has been for
> almost a year now. So until fruit stops messing
> with my blood sugar so badly, if I want to remain
> raw, I have no choice to get the bulk of my
> calories from fat - which I was very leery of
> doing, BTW. I have a very long history of gall
> bladder problems which you can make fun of and
> blame me for that, too, if you want, I don't care.
>
>
> So, in essence, I was surprised that a hclf
> diet really damaged my health,(even though I was
> feeling bouncing off the walls good to the very
> end), and that it also destroyed my skin quality
> and I was even more surprised that switching to a
> lchf diet is working out so well and I haven't had
> any gall bladder problems since I've been on the
> Conductivity Diet.
>
> I focus now on nutrients because not focusing
> on them was stupid of me. Had I been paying closer
> attention I would have realized, for one thing,
> that I was taking in as much sugar sometimes at
> each meal that labs use as a glucose tolerance
> test. Doing that day after day after day was
> unwise, IMO. The only public people I see getting
> away with doing that are the ones who run, run,
> run, run, run and burn all the excess off before
> it catches them. Personally, I prefer to only run
> when I have to - as in when being chased by
> something evil which outside of my body.
>
> My B-12 is fine though and always has been but
> just because it is I wouldn't dream of accusing
> people who have B-12 problems that it's their own
> fault...


My guess is that the reason your blood sugar spikes every time you eat fruit is because due to the large amounts of fat you're eating, the sugar is being trapped in your bloodstream. Obviously it's not a good idea to eat large amounts of sugar each and every day while being sedentary, but exercising is very important when it comes to health. You may not prefer to run, but by admitting this you are also admitting that you are the reason your low-fat raw diet didn't work. Eating a lot of fruit and not exercising is a bad idea for most people in the long-run, regardless of how good they feel. Why jump to the Tavis Bradley diet when you could've just started exercising more and added more sprouts and fresh veggies to the diet? And were you already eating algae and sea vegetables before this diet or did you start afterwards?

jtprindl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> SueZ Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > > focusing on nutrients is absurd. only the
> > people
> > > who are not doing well focus on nutrients
> > > unfortunately. they presume that the reason
> > they
> > > didn't do well on a diet was because of
> > nutrients,
> > > when (other than b12) it was simply about
> > getting
> > > a clean body and proper intake of simple
> foods.
> >
> >
> > Fresh, when I first switched to a raw vegan
> > diet from a vegetarian one, (I haven't eaten a
> SAD
> > diet since the 1980's), I did not focus on
> > nutrients at all and I wasn't taking any
> > supplements. I wanted to give it a clean and
> fair
> > try. When I went to hclf I set up an account
> for
> > chronometer, which was a good suggestion I
> learned
> > from Durianrider.
> >
> > I did not sign up to study nutrients but to
> > keep track of my calorie intake. I did not get
> > interested in the minutia of nutrients until
> after
> > being on a hclf diet for a full 11 months and
> my
> > yearly extensive lab workup revealed that it
> would
> > be wrong to continue on that diet one more day,
> > even though I loved it and felt bouncing off
> the
> > walls great at the time.
> >
> > I had fully expected that my lab work was
> going
> > to be stellar and was shocked at the results. I
> > had become prediabetic, (with no family history
> of
> > that even with several sad eating obese
> > relatives), and my lipid panel tests and some
> > others were awful.
> >
> > I now, and for the last 10 months at least,
> take
> > my blood sugar every day hoping Dr. Gabriel
> > Cousens was right in his assurances that
> > following his directions could lead to a cure
> and
> > I can start eating more fruit again but that
> has
> > not been the case for me. If I eat fruit my
> blood
> > sugar still goes up. When I don't my fasting
> blood
> > sugar stays in the 80's even though my fat
> intake
> > is always between 60% and 70% and has been for
> > almost a year now. So until fruit stops messing
> > with my blood sugar so badly, if I want to
> remain
> > raw, I have no choice to get the bulk of my
> > calories from fat - which I was very leery of
> > doing, BTW. I have a very long history of gall
> > bladder problems which you can make fun of and
> > blame me for that, too, if you want, I don't
> care.
> >
> >
> > So, in essence, I was surprised that a hclf
> > diet really damaged my health,(even though I
> was
> > feeling bouncing off the walls good to the very
> > end), and that it also destroyed my skin
> quality
> > and I was even more surprised that switching to
> a
> > lchf diet is working out so well and I haven't
> had
> > any gall bladder problems since I've been on
> the
> > Conductivity Diet.
> >
> > I focus now on nutrients because not
> focusing
> > on them was stupid of me. Had I been paying
> closer
> > attention I would have realized, for one thing,
> > that I was taking in as much sugar sometimes at
> > each meal that labs use as a glucose tolerance
> > test. Doing that day after day after day was
> > unwise, IMO. The only public people I see
> getting
> > away with doing that are the ones who run, run,
> > run, run, run and burn all the excess off
> before
> > it catches them. Personally, I prefer to only
> run
> > when I have to - as in when being chased by
> > something evil which outside of my body.
> >
> > My B-12 is fine though and always has been
> but
> > just because it is I wouldn't dream of accusing
> > people who have B-12 problems that it's their
> own
> > fault...





> > My guess is that the reason your blood sugar
> spikes every time you eat fruit is because due to
> the large amounts of fat you're eating, the sugar
> is being trapped in your bloodstream.

No that is not a good guess. I've done many many tests - something I think more people might want to think about doing. My blood O2 is doing very well on high fat.


Obviously
> it's not a good idea to eat large amounts of sugar
> each and every day while being sedentary, but
> exercising is very important when it comes to
> health.

Many lfrv diet gurus admit to being mostly sedentary. I do exercise. I do not run.

You may not prefer to run, but by
> admitting this you are also admitting that you are
> the reason your low-fat raw diet didn't work.

Silly.


Why jump to the Tavis
> Bradley diet when you could've just started
> exercising more and added more sprouts and fresh
> veggies to the diet?

Once again, I do exercise and there are plenty of fresh veggies and sprouts on the Conductivity Diet and I ate them all anyway. I have ben sprouting since the 1970's.

BTW,The Conductivity Diet is NOT a low fruit diet. It is working for many people who eat a lot of fat. Doing it without the fruit is my idea only, for me.

And were you already eating
> algae and sea vegetables before this diet or did
> you start afterwards?

Once again, I've been eating them since before you were born.

Hey, jtprindl, are you not aware that most mushroom "superfoods" in N. America are grown exactly in the areas the most Fukushima fallout occurred and is still occurring and that mushrooms suck up radioactive isotopes like a sponge? These things are not to be recommended by people who know what they are talking about.