What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
29 Comments
- OfNumbers, on 04/12/2009, -1/+15Dugg for bacon.
- board23, on 04/13/2009, -0/+12I'm a little concerned with the following quote:
"so high as to often be beyond the measurement range of the instruments used"
Any analytical chemist knows that a simple dilution would get the "toxic" analyte levels in the dynamic range of the analytical instrument. - WoollyMittens, on 04/13/2009, -0/+9What hyperbole. If your sample is too concentrated, you dilute it by an order of magnitude and multiply the results.
- flamesoftheend, on 04/13/2009, -1/+9Robert Hogg, how ironic.
- inactive, on 04/13/2009, -0/+4I'm just imagining what Robert Hogg looks like. lol
- walshgopher, on 04/13/2009, -0/+4I agree, due to the risks involved they would want to make the testing process fool proof. diluting and doing the math for it leaves much room for human error. To say the contamination was off the scale relays volumes to the recipiant. If they want exact numbers they can now take steps to find them.
- zelgadisx, on 04/13/2009, -0/+4Not Kosher!
- AmnesiacJack, on 04/13/2009, -0/+3*DFB
- benroy, on 04/13/2009, -2/+5And so began the Irish Pork Famine of 2009.
- inactive, on 04/13/2009, -0/+3That's serious stuff. Dioxins bond to the meat and get transmitted into the consumer who eats the meat.
- secrity, on 04/13/2009, -0/+2My guess is that their certified testing protocol is essentally to put a sample in the testing machine, push a button, and write down what the display says. Diluting the sample and then correcting for the dilution would probably not be part of the certified procedure and would possibly not be considered valid.
- JohnnySoftware, on 07/22/2009, -0/+1Holy crap, that's retarded. Was it a small mom & pop family farm or a big, industrial farm with thousands of pigs in it?
As for forty years before feeling ill effects, that is less than the life expectancy for any country on Earth that I have heard of so clearly that is not okay. - inactive, on 04/13/2009, -0/+1If you can't measure at 1/g per liter reduce it down to 1/g per 100 liters or ppm or g/ltr or mol / g
- whirlingderv, on 04/13/2009, -0/+1like Chief Wiggum.
- erikmarcus, on 04/13/2009, -0/+1Sounds like you'll get your wish.
- inactive, on 04/13/2009, -0/+1Only Orange and hairy...
- Kragnerac, on 04/13/2009, -0/+1Turkey bacon?
- inactive, on 04/13/2009, -0/+1This is the media of the world...
Logic has no place over sensationalizing. pebble hits water, frogs die in massive tsunami. Child pebble tosser expresses no remorse.. - Opiate, on 04/13/2009, -0/+1Economic Hitmen
- BossKey, on 04/13/2009, -0/+1What is his toxin level?
- GavinZac, on 04/14/2009, -0/+1Which sounds very scary except that you had to be eating the pork with the toxins at those levels for 40 years before you'd feel any ill effects.
It was one particular pig-feed factory getting lazy and chucking old bread, plastic packaging and all, into the mix of pig food. - Rudegar, on 04/13/2009, -0/+1choose your poison
- board23, on 04/13/2009, -1/+2Put a sample in a testing machine and push a button... I'm pretty sure its a little more complicated than that.
Diluting samples to obtain a proper working concentration is considered a standard practice in analytical chemistry. Furthermore, a properly done dilution using volumetric flasks or pipettes (calibrated of course) won't have a statistically significant impact on the final results (<5% error). And as for the math:
C1V1 = C2V2 (basically) - tsotha, on 04/13/2009, -0/+1Yeah, it's just hyperbole. I'm not surprised it maxed out the test that's calibrated for, you know, 3 ppm. But the article would be far less interesting if the writer said "... and they had to recalibrate the chemical test to measure the amount of contamination."
- spreadluv, on 04/13/2009, -0/+0http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4Gu2rDYpAI
- CVL4317, on 04/13/2009, -2/+2spider-pig~ spider pig~
- Collecto, on 04/13/2009, -5/+4I would rather die eating poisoned Bacon, than to eat none at all.
- LeanMeat, on 04/13/2009, -3/+1Hmmm you don't say. Perhaps we should further review the toxic analyte and use proper reciprocative technique to question the legitimacy of the previous measurements.
- inactive, on 04/13/2009, -6/+0More information about this topic here: http://www.promovare-optimizare.com
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is