嗯, 要小心是应该的, 但是从学术论证的严紧性, 我觉的这片文不合格

首先声明,本人也害怕, 所以最近开使找不含hormn的猪肉, 但是
文章本身写的不太好.

一开使就给出这样的结论:"
Consumers of pork products may not be too happy though, since most of the pork products they buy at conventional grocery stores and restaurants are chocked full of Paylean, a chemical that has been shown to have the potential for causing cancer and cardiovascular disease."
但是后来只是说同类药物有发现是至癌物, 跟本没有一点直接研究
paylean的, 更不要说在猪身体里的代泄物和Under various cooking conditions,什么
会发生, 最基本的证据都没有, 就"has been shown to have the
potential..."不能另人信服, 反而会招来反击和嘲讽.
"The active ingredient in Paylean is ractopamine hydrochloride, a drug that belongs to the class of beta-adrenoceptor agonists......Some drugs of this class have been determined to be carcinogenic."
逻辑上不能以此类推. 文中倒是说了, 97%要排净需要7天, 但如果
没有排就杀, 那这些药主要聚集在哪里, 内脏? 血液?放过血后还剩多?药物是evenly distributed through the body, 还是主要聚集
在某个脏器,来缓释出来?
如过我门都吃了那么多paylean, 我们为什么没有多长瘦肉? 呵呵

"No long term studies have been conducted to determine the safety or the effects of ractopamine hydrochloride in humans, and no data exists relating to the long-term exposure of humans to the chemical. 看起来好象有short term
study存在, then what is the result? "为什么不说?
文章写的好象要申请funding 的proposal

所有跟帖： 

• 是的。不过这文章应该不是学术文章，所以不可能像学术论证那般严谨吧 -woth- ♀ (508 bytes) () 12/17/2009 postreply 22:32:36

• 说的好,"不一定对人有效", then what will happen on human beings? -lilac-pink- ♀ (83 bytes) () 12/17/2009 postreply 22:39:11

• 你是好心, 请别介意我这么picky -lilac-pink- ♀ (62 bytes) () 12/17/2009 postreply 22:41:40

• 呵呵，我怎么会介意呢。提出问题总是好的，这说明我们在 -woth- ♀ (145 bytes) () 12/17/2009 postreply 23:04:45

• 呵呵，其实如果你读了这篇文章的后面，你可能会发现，这应该 -woth- ♀ (1006 bytes) () 12/17/2009 postreply 23:00:58

• 在长瘦肉上可能不一定对人有效，不过有效的让人长瘦肉药物 -woth- ♀ (299 bytes) () 12/17/2009 postreply 23:17:19