Re: Evidence in Light or Darkness?

[Guest guest]

Yes. Reason it out: SCOBY means symbiotic colony of beneficial yeasts and

bacteria. The UV rays in sunlight are known to be anti-bacterial and

anti-fungal; fluorescent light also has UV rays.

Therefore, you can kill your brew by leaving it in direct sunlight or

fluorescent light. Don't try it - I knew someone whose son did it. He got

food poisoning.

CMR

Evidence in Light or Darkness?

>

> Is there any evidence out there of where light or darkness will effect the

> KT brew one way or the other? I have mine next to a north facing window

> where there is no direct sunlight and in a room where a flourescent light

> is on quite a bit during the day. Still trying to find out why my batches

> are not producing any new scobies! Thanks for all your help on this

> forum--God Bless,

>

>

[Guest guest]

>Yes. Reason it out: SCOBY means symbiotic colony of beneficial yeasts and

>bacteria. The UV rays in sunlight are known to be anti-bacterial and

>anti-fungal; fluorescent light also has UV rays.

>Therefore, you can kill your brew by leaving it in direct sunlight or

>fluorescent light. Don't try it - I knew someone whose son did it. He got

>food poisoning.

>CMR

Well, reasoning it out is the theory, but I think the theory is

overintellectuallized. I definitely question this food poisoning thing

also. But nevertheless, without meaning to do so, one of my 2-gal vessels

is positioned such that it gets 2-3 hours of sun (through a window) a day

in summer. It was the happiest vessel and produced fabulous SCOBYs all

summer-- I continually wished I had more space so that my other vessels

could get a few rays. I believe Margret has made similar observations. I

would note that sunbeams through a window is different from a vessel

outdoors in full sun.

I believe that, just like humans, the brews can do with a moderate amount

of sun.

--V

~~~ There is no way to peace; peace is the way ~~~~

--A.J. Muste

[Guest guest]

In message you wrote:

>

> Well, reasoning it out is the theory, but I think the theory is

> overintellectuallized. I definitely question this food poisoning thing

> also.

Absolutely! It is such an easy thing to point the finger at a totally

innocent party, when all along the fault was a much more likely one

like consumption of contaminated meat, seafood or some such ...

> I believe Margret has made similar observations.

I did, .

> .... note that sunbeams through a window is different from a vessel

> outdoors in full sun.

Yes, I agree. These days all my vessels are completey in shade, but not by

choice. I'm already planning some of my glass containers to come into

my south facing living room which is much brighter than the north facing

kitchen.

Some rays of the sun tickling the Kombucha can only be of benefit IMHO. :-)

Writing from a cold but gloriously sunny English day,

when I let the sunshine soak into my face and hands

and feel already very much more enlivened!

Margret:-)

--

+---------------------------------------------------------------+

Minstrel@...

<)))<>< http://www.therpc.f9.co.uk <)))<><

http://www.AnswersInGenesis.com

http://www.elijahlist.com

+---------------------------------------------------------------+

~~ I have made this letter longer than usual, because I lack the

time to make it short.~~ B.Pascal

[Guest guest]

Certain bacteria react to light and certain do not. So light would in

fact kill some of the bacteria in the culture, however which ones is

anyone's guess. It would also depend on what type of light and how

much exposure as to what the effect would be on the cultuer. Bacteria

existent in nature and we know nature has plenty of light 12 hours a

day. So I think it would affect the SCOBY but how much is not known. I

do wonder if the exposure to light is one reason why some on the board

have thin SCOBY…just a thought.

I keep my cultures in a cabinet with good ventilation. I open the

cabinet daily and talk to the cultures and I often leave the cabinet

door open and turn on my daughter's clock CD player for them, My

children's room is between the two cabinets where I culture the KT and

I have always thought that the noise of the children and their happy

laughter must make the culture better as well. I know this is just

speculation but childhood laughter often makes people smile, the

beloved culture is probably no different.

Kellie

>

> Yes. Reason it out: SCOBY means symbiotic colony of beneficial

yeasts and

> bacteria. The UV rays in sunlight are known to be anti-bacterial and

> anti-fungal; fluorescent light also has UV rays.

> Therefore, you can kill your brew by leaving it in direct sunlight or

> fluorescent light. Don't try it - I knew someone whose son did it.

He got

> food poisoning.

> CMR

> Evidence in Light or Darkness?

>

>

> >

> > Is there any evidence out there of where light or darkness will

effect the

> > KT brew one way or the other? I have mine next to a north facing

window

> > where there is no direct sunlight and in a room where a

flourescent light

> > is on quite a bit during the day. Still trying to find out why my

batches

> > are not producing any new scobies! Thanks for all your help on this

> > forum--God Bless,

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

>Certain bacteria react to light and certain do not. So light would in

>fact kill some of the bacteria in the culture, however which ones is

>anyone's guess.

This is speculation. It does not " in fact " necessarily kill any of the

bacteria. I'm willing to entertain the idea that a SCOBY exposed to direct

sunlight outdoors might suffer, but that is a far cry from sunrays through

a window and then through a glass vessel. The myth/theory is that

sunlight/light is bad. The experience/practice is that sunlight/light is

good.

>It would also depend on what type of light and how

>much exposure as to what the effect would be on the cultuer. Bacteria

>existent in nature and we know nature has plenty of light 12 hours a

>day. So I think it would affect the SCOBY but how much is not known. I

>do wonder if the exposure to light is one reason why some on the board

>have thin SCOBY…just a thought.

Not a thought based in practice. Sorry, but this is all just

speculation. Practice has shown that in fact cultures getting some

sunlight grow the best SCOBYs (and nicest tasting, balanced brews) in my

house, and I'm not the only one who has experienced this.

--V

~~~ There is no way to peace; peace is the way ~~~~

--A.J. Muste

[Guest guest]

> This is speculation. It does not " in fact " necessarily kill any of the

> bacteria. I'm willing to entertain the idea that a SCOBY exposed to

direct

> sunlight outdoors might suffer, but that is a far cry from sunrays

through

> a window and then through a glass vessel. The myth/theory is that

> sunlight/light is bad. The experience/practice is that

sunlight/light is

> good.

No this is not speculation, this is scientific fact that bacteria is

killed by sunlight. The simple fact we do not have SCOBY just hanging

around for us to take in nature shows us this, and if you just do a

simple web search and research on the nature of bacteria you will see

this is correct.

Sunlight does penetrate a window, just the fact that a doctor will

tell you to cover yourself if you have skin cancer while driving

supports this. However I agree that it is not going to be as strong as

direct light.

I understand what your experience is, and I am not saying not to put

the culture where you desire, however to say that sunlight does not

affect a SCOBY is just not scientifically correct. My point is that

there definitely will be bacteria that will be affected by light,

which ones is hard to say since the SCOBY is made of different

bacteria, however the bacteria that the SCOBY has that are affected by

light will be affected.

Kellie

[Guest guest]

Hi Kellie-

I'm pretty sure it's the UV from sun that kills bacteria (UV is very

effective at killing bacteria), and I don't think much UV gets through glass

(driving in the summer with the car window down, my arm gets burned -- with

the window up, no burn).

And a side note on sunlight: far greater numbers of people die each year

from diseases (cancers, mostly, but also MS and others) associated with a

lack of vitamin D (which is, of course, produced by the body with the help

of UVB from the sun) than die each year from skin cancers, including

melanoma. (This is proven scientific fact.) The whole " stay out of the sun "

warnings we've been inundated with lately are pretty much bad advice, though

it is prudent to avoid sunburn. Also, one is more likely to be vulnerable to

UV if poorly nourished. If a person is healthy and has plenty of

antioxidants onboard, the sun is less of a problem. I know people who use

coconut oil as " sun tan lotion " and never have any problems with sun burn or

sun damage. Of course, as with most things, moderation makes sense. My main

brew jar is ceramic, though, so for me the sun shining on my brew isn't an

issue. I hope I'm not depriving the poor things :>)

All the best,

Dana

-----Original Message-----

From: original_kombucha

[mailto:original_kombucha ] On Behalf Of kelrivas

No this is not speculation, this is scientific fact that bacteria is

killed by sunlight.

[Guest guest]

Kellie,

Please, I mean no offense, but there is no sense in arguing with opinions as

fact, that's not going to help the culture or anyone else.

And if you're going to mention science, please state your sources for your

conclusions as this is what science is all about.

For example: from this site..

http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/bacterium/

" Autotrophic *bacteria* make their own food, either by photosynthesis (*which

uses sunlight, carbon dioxide and water to make food*) or by chemosynthesis

(which uses carbon dioxide, water and chemicals like ammonia to make food -

these bacteria are called nitrogen fixers and include the bacteria found

living in legume roots and in ocean vents). "

It is true that sunlight kills certain bacteria, but there are others that

thrive and depend on it. Don't know where kombucha fits in here, it's

anyones guess.

I have grown fine scobys producing fine Kombucha in complete darkness

without a problems. That kind of tells me that kombucha does not

nessescarily *need* sunlight.

I couldn't tell you for sure whether or not it is harmed by it. To really

know the truth you would first need to identify all of the microbes present

in the culture, then find out what sort of preferences they

individually have regarding sunlight exposure...

I do think that the differences in results that are experienced by folks

who claim that the brew turned out better with a little sun, is mostly, if

not entirely due to temperature. Different temps favor different microbes

producing different flavors and effects on scoby growth.

eg. Cupboards are closed off to warmer ambient temps, central areas are

generally warmer, sunlight is warming, etc.

Too much direct sun is one sure way to cook the culture dead through glass

with the intense heat alone.

Far too many variables to really argue much. I don't really know, but when I

think of the history I sure get ideas of the way a scoby *used* to live..

Before clear glass was common and inexpensive, opaque earthenware crocks

were used to keep such things and that's a dark place to live for

sure. hmmm, a clue perhaps.

Best to all,

Relax, Don't Worry, Enjoy a Homebrew!

Beau

>

>

> > This is speculation. It does not " in fact " necessarily kill any of the

> > bacteria. I'm willing to entertain the idea that a SCOBY exposed to

> direct

> > sunlight outdoors might suffer, but that is a far cry from sunrays

> through

> > a window and then through a glass vessel. The myth/theory is that

> > sunlight/light is bad. The experience/practice is that

> sunlight/light is

> > good.

>

> No this is not speculation, this is scientific fact that bacteria is

> killed by sunlight. The simple fact we do not have SCOBY just hanging

> around for us to take in nature shows us this, and if you just do a

> simple web search and research on the nature of bacteria you will see

> this is correct.

>

> Sunlight does penetrate a window, just the fact that a doctor will

> tell you to cover yourself if you have skin cancer while driving

> supports this. However I agree that it is not going to be as strong as

> direct light.

>

> I understand what your experience is, and I am not saying not to put

> the culture where you desire, however to say that sunlight does not

> affect a SCOBY is just not scientifically correct. My point is that

> there definitely will be bacteria that will be affected by light,

> which ones is hard to say since the SCOBY is made of different

> bacteria, however the bacteria that the SCOBY has that are affected by

> light will be affected.

>

> Kellie

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

> I couldn't tell you for sure whether or not it is harmed by it. To really

>know the truth you would first need to identify all of the microbes present

>in the culture, then find out what sort of preferences they

>individually have regarding sunlight exposure...

That's what I was trying to say.

> I do think that the differences in results that are experienced by folks

>who claim that the brew turned out better with a little sun, is mostly, if

>not entirely due to temperature. Different temps favor different microbes

>producing different flavors and effects on scoby growth.

> eg. Cupboards are closed off to warmer ambient temps, central areas are

>generally warmer, sunlight is warming, etc.

Yes, agreed. However, what I observe is two identical 2.25 gal glass

crocks sitting next to each other on a countertop, with white cotton

tight-weave tea towels draped over each that cover the whole vessel as

well. The one that gets sunrays is a more active brew and the brews taste

better. Yes, this is partly a heating thing, but I'm also a believer in

the *unseen* aspects of the kombucha culture, not just the seen or

quantifiable. And to me, it makes a nicer brew.

But the main point is that the brew is far from harmed by the sunrays.

> Too much direct sun is one sure way to cook the culture dead through glass

>with the intense heat alone.

I'm sure this is possible, however that is not an issue in my situation and

I have tried to be very clear that I am talking about limited exposure.

>Far too many variables to really argue much. I don't really know, but when I

>think of the history I sure get ideas of the way a scoby *used* to live..

> Before clear glass was common and inexpensive, opaque earthenware crocks

>were used to keep such things and that's a dark place to live for

>sure. hmmm, a clue perhaps.

I quite agree that KT doesn't *need* sunlight to brew. However, given

today's conditions of clear glass being available, a theory that sunlight

kills or inhibits the brew has been proved not to be factual under limited

conditions. I am quite certain that a clay crock receiving warming sunrays

would not be damaged either. So the dire warnings about it are

misplaced. Which is my point.

--V

~~~ There is no way to peace; peace is the way ~~~~

--A.J. Muste

[Guest guest]

I agree with you completely , the sun is no devil, I was just

trying to offer some objective information to the debate. I don't feel

strongly about it either way.

Peace,

Beau

>

>

> > I couldn't tell you for sure whether or not it is harmed by it. To

> really

> >know the truth you would first need to identify all of the microbes

> present

> >in the culture, then find out what sort of preferences they

> >individually have regarding sunlight exposure...

>

> That's what I was trying to say.

>

> > I do think that the differences in results that are experienced by

> folks

> >who claim that the brew turned out better with a little sun, is mostly,

> if

> >not entirely due to temperature. Different temps favor different microbes

> >producing different flavors and effects on scoby growth.

> > eg. Cupboards are closed off to warmer ambient temps, central areas are

> >generally warmer, sunlight is warming, etc.

>

> Yes, agreed. However, what I observe is two identical 2.25 gal glass

> crocks sitting next to each other on a countertop, with white cotton

> tight-weave tea towels draped over each that cover the whole vessel as

> well. The one that gets sunrays is a more active brew and the brews taste

> better. Yes, this is partly a heating thing, but I'm also a believer in

> the *unseen* aspects of the kombucha culture, not just the seen or

> quantifiable. And to me, it makes a nicer brew.

>

> But the main point is that the brew is far from harmed by the sunrays.

>

> > Too much direct sun is one sure way to cook the culture dead through

> glass

> >with the intense heat alone.

>

> I'm sure this is possible, however that is not an issue in my situation

> and

> I have tried to be very clear that I am talking about limited exposure.

>

> >Far too many variables to really argue much. I don't really know, but

> when I

> >think of the history I sure get ideas of the way a scoby *used* to live..

> > Before clear glass was common and inexpensive, opaque earthenware

> crocks

> >were used to keep such things and that's a dark place to live for

> >sure. hmmm, a clue perhaps.

>

> I quite agree that KT doesn't *need* sunlight to brew. However, given

> today's conditions of clear glass being available, a theory that sunlight

> kills or inhibits the brew has been proved not to be factual under limited

> conditions. I am quite certain that a clay crock receiving warming

> sunrays

> would not be damaged either. So the dire warnings about it are

> misplaced. Which is my point.

>

> --V

>

>

>

> ~~~ There is no way to peace; peace is the way ~~~~

> --A.J. Muste

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

> I agree with you completely , the sun is no devil, I was just

>trying to offer some objective information to the debate. I don't feel

>strongly about it either way.

>Peace,

>Beau

Yes, thank you I appreciate your doing so.

raising a glass of the good stuff--

--V

~~~ There is no way to peace; peace is the way ~~~~

--A.J. Muste

[Guest guest]

CHEERS!

>

>

> > I agree with you completely , the sun is no devil, I was just

> >trying to offer some objective information to the debate. I don't feel

> >strongly about it either way.

> >Peace,

> >Beau

>

> Yes, thank you I appreciate your doing so.

>

> raising a glass of the good stuff--

> --V

>

>

>

> ~~~ There is no way to peace; peace is the way ~~~~

> --A.J. Muste

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

>

> Hi Kellie-

>

> I'm pretty sure it's the UV from sun that kills bacteria (UV is very

> effective at killing bacteria), and I don't think much UV gets

through glass

> (driving in the summer with the car window down, my arm gets burned

-- with

> the window up, no burn).

Unfortunately Dana I have to disagree with you, and below is a quote

from Berkley stating otherwise.

" UVA rays have longer wavelengths and are recognized as a

deep-penetrating radiation. Long-term exposure can damage the skin's

connective tissues, leading to premature aging and playing a role in

the development of skin cancer. UVA rays pass through window glass. "

http://www.uhs.berkeley.edu/home/healthtopics/sunsafety.shtml

(hope that makes Beau happy that I quoted a source this time :>)

I think we need to be very careful on this board with information.

While many of us have our own experience and problems with the MD

community, there is some good information out there from the

scientific community that we need to respect.

Doctors do warn against exposure to sun in the car and as well as even

through clothing. Some clothing is worse than others and the market

for sunscreen protective clothing grows daily. People with skin cancer

(my grandmother for example) are often given quite a bit of warnings

to be very conscious of levels of sun exposure, through windows,

through their clothes and even with sunscreen on.

The sun is a wonderful thing, however our environment is not the same

as it was 100 years ago, and exposure to the radiation of the sun is

not as well filtered through our atmosphere today as it was during our

early ancestors.

I am not saying do not put your cultures near sun. What I am saying is

do not make a blanket statement that the sun is healthy for them, or

that it does not affect them, for scientific evidence shows otherwise.

There are millions of different types of bacteria, some are affected

(killed) by light and some are not, and some thrive in light. If you

will check my original post concerning light my statement was the

bacteria that are affected by light WILL be affected. That is all I am

saying.

My personal experience is that they do better away from direct

sunlight. Your own mileage may vary

Kellie

Kellie

[Guest guest]

> Kellie,

> Please, I mean no offense, but there is no sense in arguing with

opinions as

> fact, that's not going to help the culture or anyone else.

> And if you're going to mention science, please state your sources

for your

> conclusions as this is what science is all about.

> For example: from this site..

> http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/bacterium/

Beau I do not take offense, however if you will read from the previous

post it was my comments that were called into question, and I was

answering those questions with my own knowledge of science. I was not

trying to argue, but answer statements that were directly challenging

my own experience.

I will say you are right that I should state my source. So I will

attempt to do so in this post, though unfortunately it will make this

post much longer than I desire, I apologize to those who do not like

lengthy posts, just delete it and move on, :> But I felt since I was

addressed publically on the board I need to make an attempt to so in

return

Below are some websites that discuss the process of photosynthesis in

bacteria

http://www-micro.msb.le.ac.uk/Video/photosynthesis.html

http://photoscience.la.asu.edu/photosyn/education/photointro.html

Blue-green algae are the primary bacteria that are autotrophic,

meaning they create their own food. To be autotrophic chlorophyll is

required. I am not sure about others but I do not see any green in my

cultures and if I did I would NOT be using it again, it would find a

quick home in my garden. :>

Now from my understanding the bacteria that we have in our cultures

are Heterotrophs they use organic carbon sources to produce energy

(sugar). While a few Heterotrophs utilize light (Rhodospirillum) for

energy, these bacteria are green and purple. I have not seen any

purple in my cultures as well, so I can only assume that we do not

have any Rhodospirillum.. Below is some information to support this:

" Photoheterotrophs (def) use light as an energy source but cannot

convert carbon dioxide into energy. Instead they use organic compounds

(def) as a carbon source. They include the green nonsulfur bacteria

and the purple nonsulfur bacteria. "

http://www.cat.cc.md.us/courses/bio141/lecguide/unit4/metabolism/growth/factors.\

html

Now I do agree Beau that the sun is probably a source of heat, and if

the sun is in fact helping the by product of our cultures, the KT, I

would believe that is due to the heat source, not the light, and here

is a quote to support this:

" The most common environmental conditions that a microbiologist

considers (to support bacteria) are temperature, pH, oxygen, light

(photosynthesizing species only) salt/sugar concentration and special

nutrients. Each bacteria has an optimum range of these conditions

within which it grows at a maximum rate. "

http://www.slic2.wsu.edu:82/hurlbert/micro101/pages/Chap4.html#Environment

I agree sources are important, but I also feel it is very important to

get creditable sources. I am no expert on microbiology, however as a

former high school biology teacher with a minor in life sciences, I

feel I can read a good research paper as well as anyone. While I love

the Enchanted Learning website that was quoted above, and have used

their educational materials often in my class, I would not consider it

an expert source microbiology.

However a university with a microbiology department that regularly

produces research investigating the affects of light on bacteria I

would. Below is something I would consider a creditable sources about

the effects of light on bacteria growth:

" During these tests, we were able to determine not only how different

levels of UV dosage initially affected a sample of heterotrophic

bacteria, but also how well the treated bacteria were able to grow

following a 48-hour incubation period. Results from these experiments

showed a 10,000-fold reduction in culturable bacteria following a UV

radiation dose of 75 mJ cm-2. This indicated either complete

inactivation of bacterial reproductive ability, or at least a

significant period during which DNA damage inhibited reproductive

function.

http://sgnis.org/publicat/paulblat.htm

As a science teacher I received many science projects submitted to the

CA state science fair about the effects of light on bacteria, all

supported the theory that UV light does in fact increase mortality

rate in certain non-photosynthesizing bacteria, though short brief

exposure does not, and may even strengthen it the culture (possible

adaptation of the species who survive?) Once such similar project can

be found at http://www.usc.edu/CSSF/History/2004/Projects/J1303.pdf

In conclusion I am going to say the same thing that I did originally.

Those bacteria that are affected negatively by light WILL BE affected,

those that won't, won't. Not very scientifically stated, but it gets

the point across that I was trying to make from the start, some

bacteria are negatively affected by light and because of that I DO NOT

culture near direct sunlight.

I believe the benefits of the Internet are a free exchange of

information, and an ability to share ones own experience. However,

some, it appears, on this board enjoy debate for the sake of debating

alone. I always enjoy a good discussion, but quite frankly I feel some

are attempting to put a lid on my ability to share my own experiences,

and to answer questions of others as to why they might be experiencing

some challenges. If some one is going to challenge my experience and

my opinions I will by all means meet that challenge and share my own

experience with my reasons for my own views. I will also expect others

to do the same.

Kellie

[Guest guest]

I see your point, though I never get a sunburn through my car window (or any

other window, for that matter), and I have a very fair complexion and burn

easily. Maybe it's because the car window has some tint (thought it's not

obvious). The sun can certainly fade fabrics and furniture through glass

windows, so UV obviously does go through glass. As far as the sun's effect

on Kombucha culture mats, I really don't have an opinion on that and didn't

make any recommendations about it one way or the other. My comment about

maybe depriving mine by not giving it some sun was made in jest (as

indicated by the smiley face at the end of the sentence). I don't put mine

in direct sun, mainly because the kitchen, where they live, doesn't have a

sunny window.

As far as the sun causing skin cancer, check out the masses of new

scientific information on the effects of too little vitamin D (from the sun

or from supplements). None of the new breed of vitamin D scientists suggests

unlimited time in the sun; they just point out that avoiding the sun is

damaging to our health (and I do know people who use nothing but coconut oil

when in the sun -- they have beautiful skin and never get burned). Most of

these vitamin D experts say to be sure to avoid getting burned. Following

are a few links on the subject:

http://www.vitamindcouncil.com/

http://www.vitamindreport.com/

Discovering the Truth Behind the Sunshine/Skin Cancer Myth

http://www.mercola.com/2005/feb/19/sun_skin.htm

I don't mean to be on any kind of a vitamin D crusade here; I just have

little patience for following the establishment line without adequate

research on the subject. The bottom line as I see it: get some sun on a

regular basis and don't get burned. The common recommendation about staying

out of the sun and covering every inch of one's body with toxic chemical

sunscreens before ever stepping out one's door isn't supported by scientific

fact and makes no sense. I understand about the environment being different

than it was years ago, but that doesn't alter our need for the sun (maybe we

just get the benefit in less time).

And last, I'll have to say that I resent your implication that I present

anything to this (or any other message group) irresponsibly. I am a

researcher and writer and check things out before making any

recommendations. Also, any further discussion on the vitamin D/Sun/ozone

subjects probably should be taken to the KT off topic list.

-Dana

-----Original Message-----

From: original_kombucha

[mailto:original_kombucha ] On Behalf Of kelrivas

Unfortunately Dana I have to disagree with you, and below is a quote

from Berkley stating otherwise.

" UVA rays have longer wavelengths and are recognized as a

deep-penetrating radiation. Long-term exposure can damage the skin's

connective tissues, leading to premature aging and playing a role in

the development of skin cancer. UVA rays pass through window glass. "

http://www.uhs.berkeley.edu/home/healthtopics/sunsafety.shtml

(hope that makes Beau happy that I quoted a source this time :>)

I think we need to be very careful on this board with information.

While many of us have our own experience and problems with the MD

community, there is some good information out there from the

scientific community that we need to respect.

[Guest guest]

>

> And last, I'll have to say that I resent your implication that I present

> anything to this (or any other message group) irresponsibly. I am a

> researcher and writer and check things out before making any

> recommendations. Also, any further discussion on the vitamin D/Sun/ozone

> subjects probably should be taken to the KT off topic list.

>

> -Dana

I did not mean to imply that you presented anything irresponsibly,

just that harmful UV rays do penetrate glass. My intent was not to say

you were promoting bad information, but to make a point that if the

scientific community warns us about how our skin can indeed experience

damage by sunlight through windows, then so can the Kombucha culture.

My comments were in regards to the effect of light on Kombucha and why

I do not ferment near light, not to debate the issue of the sun and

skin cancer. My points had to do with the idea that if scientists say

that UV light can penetrate windows then it in fact can affect a

culture in a glass jar sitting near direct light.

I had no desire to upset you, but just responded to a statement you

made in regards to one of my posts about UV light through windows. I

meant no ill will towards you, but felt the comment about " UV rays

through windows do not cause skin damage " needed to be addressed,

especially in light of the fact it was from one of my posts.

Kellie

-----Original Message-----

> From: original_kombucha

> [mailto:original_kombucha ] On Behalf Of kelrivas

>

>

> Unfortunately Dana I have to disagree with you, and below is a quote

> from Berkley stating otherwise.

>

> " UVA rays have longer wavelengths and are recognized as a

> deep-penetrating radiation. Long-term exposure can damage the skin's

> connective tissues, leading to premature aging and playing a role in

> the development of skin cancer. UVA rays pass through window glass. "

> http://www.uhs.berkeley.edu/home/healthtopics/sunsafety.shtml

> (hope that makes Beau happy that I quoted a source this time :>)

>

> I think we need to be very careful on this board with information.

> While many of us have our own experience and problems with the MD

> community, there is some good information out there from the

> scientific community that we need to respect.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Glass that has been coated to reflect UV will not let UV through so you

won't get burnt sitting behind it.

Glass used in cars is coated, as are some windows.

TTFN

Sue (au).

Dana Black wrote:

> I see your point, though I never get a sunburn through my car window

> (or any

> other window, for that matter), and I have a very fair complexion and burn

> easily. Maybe it's because the car window has some tint (thought it's not

> obvious). The sun can certainly fade fabrics and furniture through glass

> windows, so UV obviously does go through glass. As far as the sun's effect

> on Kombucha culture mats, I really don't have an opinion on that and

> didn't

> make any recommendations about it one way or the other. My comment about

> maybe depriving mine by not giving it some sun was made in jest (as

> indicated by the smiley face at the end of the sentence). I don't put mine

> in direct sun, mainly because the kitchen, where they live, doesn't have a

> sunny window.

>

>

>

> As far as the sun causing skin cancer, check out the masses of new

> scientific information on the effects of too little vitamin D (from

> the sun

> or from supplements). None of the new breed of vitamin D scientists

> suggests

> unlimited time in the sun; they just point out that avoiding the sun is

> damaging to our health (and I do know people who use nothing but

> coconut oil

> when in the sun -- they have beautiful skin and never get burned). Most of

> these vitamin D experts say to be sure to avoid getting burned. Following

> are a few links on the subject:

>

> http://www.vitamindcouncil.com/

>

> http://www.vitamindreport.com/

>

> Discovering the Truth Behind the Sunshine/Skin Cancer Myth

>

> http://www.mercola.com/2005/feb/19/sun_skin.htm

>

>

>

> I don't mean to be on any kind of a vitamin D crusade here; I just have

> little patience for following the establishment line without adequate

> research on the subject. The bottom line as I see it: get some sun on a

> regular basis and don't get burned. The common recommendation about

> staying

> out of the sun and covering every inch of one's body with toxic chemical

> sunscreens before ever stepping out one's door isn't supported by

> scientific

> fact and makes no sense. I understand about the environment being

> different

> than it was years ago, but that doesn't alter our need for the sun

> (maybe we

> just get the benefit in less time).

>

>

>

> And last, I'll have to say that I resent your implication that I present

> anything to this (or any other message group) irresponsibly. I am a

> researcher and writer and check things out before making any

> recommendations. Also, any further discussion on the vitamin D/Sun/ozone

> subjects probably should be taken to the KT off topic list.

>

> -Dana