Parsnips

These contain toxic psoralens, which are potent light-activated carcinogens and mutagens not destroyed by cooking [Ivie 1981]. Parsnips contain psoralens at a concentration of 40 ppm, and Ivie [1981, p. 910] reports:

[C]onsumption of moderate quantities of this vegetable by man can result in the intake of appreciable amounts of psoralens. Consumption of 0.1 kg of parsnip root could expose an individual to 4 to 5 mg of total psoralens, an amount that might be expected to cause some physiological effects under certain circumstances...

From: http://www.beyondveg.com/tu-j-l/raw-...ooked-1g.shtml

In article ,
Granity writes:
|
| These contain toxic psoralens, which are potent light-activated
| carcinogens and mutagens not destroyed by cooking [Ivie 1981]. Parsnips
| contain psoralens at a concentration of 40 ppm, and Ivie [1981, p. 910]
| reports:
|
| [C]onsumption of moderate quantities of this vegetable by man can
| result in the intake of appreciable amounts of psoralens. Consumption
| of 0.1 kg of parsnip root could expose an individual to 4 to 5 mg of
| total psoralens, an amount that might be expected to cause some
| physiological effects under certain circumstances...
|
| From: http://tinyurl.com/27bnv9

Boggle. I have downloaded a copy of that letter, but can't get the
thing to print, and will ask my tame biochemist.

Something is definitely wrong, as lots of people eat that amount and
more, often frequently. I can't believe that a significant health
effect wouldn't have been noticed. But what the missing factor is,
I can't guess.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

The message
from (Nick Maclaren) contains these words:

I agree that the primary problem with strawberries is pectin (because
they have effectively damn-all), but am not entirely sure what the
problem is with Cydonia. Anyway, jam made from them alone typically
doesn't set properly.

Mine set pretty well. (Molished half a sack of them into jam...)

--
Rusty
Direct reply to: horrid dot squeak snailything zetnet point co period uk
Separator in search of a sig

The message
from "Mary Fisher" contains these words:
"Rusty Hinge 2" wrote in message
k...

You shouldn't buy it then, make your own. It's easy and far, far better.

There aren't enough hours in the year.

Oh come on! You spend time on the pc ...

Ah, but that's non-fattening.

Sounds good. It's only a few years since I finished using-up all the
jams and marmalade my mother made: some of the pots dated back to the
1950s, and some of the sugar crystals in those were hard as a hard
thing, and the size of sweets.

Yes, the slow growing crystals grow very large.

And very regular.

Microwaving the jars on the very lowest setting was fine, and the jam
became jam again, but a couple of days later it began to form crystals
again.

It would take years for them to get to the size of sweets though.

Well, as I said, some of the jam was from the 1950s. The crystals had
around forty years to grow...

....
whisper

I have a numbered bottle of single-cask-bottling of Linkwood. I'm saving
it for a special occasion and/or (a) deserving conoisseur(s) innit.

looks round

your place or mine?

Well, bringing it back from Naaaardge on the bus was terrifying enough.


p.s. so good to see that you use butter instead of something produced
by men
in white coats. Why not enhance it with your own produce?

I do, but ATM I haven't got a decent preserving pan. Well, I haven't got
a preserving pan. I molish my own pickles and things though.

I have a large brass preserving pan going a-begging. I prefer to use a very
large ss pan for all preserving. it's not as pretty but it was very cheap
and cleans easily - and of course there's no observable reaction between
metal and ingredients.

Hmmm. Linkwood meets preserving pan?

Microwave jam is really good, but you can only make so much at a time. I
can make even less as I broke the turntable in the microwave.

:-)

I've never tried it - only recently bought a microwave - but the amounts
would make it inefficient.

Yes, it doesn't sound very efficient, but when you consider that you
only cook it for minutes, it takes on a whole new attractiveness.

Freezer jam is even more efficient...

--
Rusty
Direct reply to: horrid dot squeak snailything zetnet point co period uk
Separator in search of a sig

The message
from "Mike....." contains these words:
Following up to Nick Maclaren

Sigh. I said what I meant and I meant what I said.

as did, you could be a lot more polite

I didn't notice any rudeness.

Contradiction isn't rude.

--
Rusty
Direct reply to: horrid dot squeak snailything zetnet point co period uk
Separator in search of a sig

The message
from "Mike....." contains these words:

Following up to Mike.....

I said what I meant and I meant what I said.

as did, you could be a lot more polite

you could have said "remember in winter it probably will not be a problem,
but your ego probably doesnt allow that and you have to go for the putdown.

Ah, pots and kettles...

--
Rusty
Direct reply to: horrid dot squeak snailything zetnet point co period uk
Separator in search of a sig

Mike..... writes
Following up to Nick Maclaren

Firstly, it affects only some people, and few people are seriously
affected.

assuming wild and cultivated have the same effect I suspect that isnt
true:-

"http://128.104.239.6/uw_weeds/extension/articles/wildparsnip.htm"

That's a big assumption to make here. The article refers to 'wild
parsnip' which is becoming a noxious weed in Wisconsin. Before jumping
to conclusions about cultivated parsnip, I would want to know the
species concerned (which on a quick skim read didn't seem to be in the
article), and that it was indeed the ancestor of the cultivated parsnip
(wild garlic is not te ancestor of cultivated garlic).
--
Kay

:

I agree that the primary problem with strawberries is pectin (because
they have effectively damn-all), but am not entirely sure what the
problem is with Cydonia. Anyway, jam made from them alone typically
doesn't set properly.

Mine set pretty well. (Molished half a sack of them into jam...)



I have some wild strawberries but it would take rather a lot to make a jar
of jam innit :-)

kate

I am a bit sceptical about it as well.

As to printing it, open the page, highlight and copy the text you want, open notepad, paste the text into it and print it from notepad.

In article ,
Granity writes:
|
| As to printing it, open the page, highlight and copy the text you
| want, open notepad, paste the text into it and print it from notepad.

What's notepad? :-)

The problem was the el cheapo printer that I am inflicted with at
work; I directed it to a slightly less Mickey Mouse one, and it
printed. Normal procedure ....


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

"Rusty Hinge 2" wrote in message
k...

You shouldn't buy it then, make your own. It's easy and far, far
better.

There aren't enough hours in the year.

Oh come on! You spend time on the pc ...

Ah, but that's non-fattening.

Making marmalade is slimming. As long as you don't eat it ... you use more
energy making marmalade than poking at a keyboard.

Sounds good. It's only a few years since I finished using-up all the
jams and marmalade my mother made: some of the pots dated back to the
1950s, and some of the sugar crystals in those were hard as a hard
thing, and the size of sweets.

Yes, the slow growing crystals grow very large.

And very regular.

Microwaving the jars on the very lowest setting was fine, and the jam
became jam again, but a couple of days later it began to form crystals
again.

It would take years for them to get to the size of sweets though.

Well, as I said, some of the jam was from the 1950s. The crystals had
around forty years to grow...

And you said that a couple of days after dissolving the crystals in the
m/wave they began to gorm again. I find that hard to believe - that crystals
large enough to be detected would form after a couple of days.

....
whisper

I have a numbered bottle of single-cask-bottling of Linkwood. I'm
saving
it for a special occasion and/or (a) deserving conoisseur(s) innit.

looks round

your place or mine?

Well, bringing it back from Naaaardge on the bus was terrifying enough.

So yours.


p.s. so good to see that you use butter instead of something produced
by men
in white coats. Why not enhance it with your own produce?

I do, but ATM I haven't got a decent preserving pan. Well, I haven't
got
a preserving pan. I molish my own pickles and things though.

I have a large brass preserving pan going a-begging. I prefer to use a
very
large ss pan for all preserving. it's not as pretty but it was very cheap
and cleans easily - and of course there's no observable reaction between
metal and ingredients.

Hmmm. Linkwood meets preserving pan?

When are you in?

Microwave jam is really good, but you can only make so much at a time.
I
can make even less as I broke the turntable in the microwave.

:-)

I've never tried it - only recently bought a microwave - but the amounts
would make it inefficient.

Yes, it doesn't sound very efficient, but when you consider that you
only cook it for minutes, it takes on a whole new attractiveness.

Freezer jam is even more efficient...

And excellent for strawberries. Since I can't grow strawberries and won't
buy them any more that's just a memory.

Mary

"Kate Morgan" wrote in message
et...

:

I agree that the primary problem with strawberries is pectin (because
they have effectively damn-all), but am not entirely sure what the
problem is with Cydonia. Anyway, jam made from them alone typically
doesn't set properly.

Mine set pretty well. (Molished half a sack of them into jam...)



I have some wild strawberries but it would take rather a lot to make a jar
of jam innit :-)

And what a waste of oral experience!

We once had some, don't know why I can't grow them these days :-)

Mary

Merci bien de cet explication, que j'aurais du (dû?) chercher
depuis longtemps.

| You could make your own marmalade with whisky but I'd
prefer to use
| something better than paint stripper. But there again I use
30yo Armagnac
| when I flambé a steak ...

I object! A decent single malt is at least the equal of an
Armagnac.
Nick Maclaren

Took the very words from my mouth ... I mean, keyboard ..., you
did.

The arms, legs, torso, face, and neck are most vulnerable
Doesn't seem to leave many less vulnerable bits, does it?