Terms of Non-Endearment

One term that’s really a misnomer is “organic food.” According to the Webster dictionary, organic means, “characteristic of, pertaining to, or derived from living organisms.” But when organic is placed with food, well, it doesn’t mean that non-organic food is totally artificial. For example, organic milk comes from cows, but what about “non-organic” milk? It certainly wouldn’t be a non-dairy creamer and drinking it wouldn’t eventually lead to embalmment!

Who ever chose to use the term organic really wasn’t thinking about what it means. Non-organic food is still derived from organic sources. It is after all still food. But, organic foods are supposedly produced with certain standards. For instance, they’re grown without conventional pesticides and artificial fertilizers.

Other no-nos include ionizing radiation, food additives, human or industrial waste, antibiotics, growth hormones, and, of course, it cannot be genetically modified. But does “organic” best describe all these facets required for not necessarily healthier yet definitely more expensive cuisine?

A recent study conducted by the Food Standards Agency (FSA), an independent department of the British government, found no significant differences in the nutrition content of organic food compared with conventional. This study was a systematic review of dozens of studies on organic foods, published over the past 50 years.

FSA Director Gill Fine says the study does not mean that people shouldn’t eat organic food. She added, “The agency supports consumer choice and is neither pro nor anti organic food.” Still, some will argue that this government agency must be rightwing. Maybe, it’s behind those healthcare town-hall mobs.

However, FSA never looked at pesticide or herbicide residues, nor did it do any taste comparisons. So, probably many organic food groupies will dismiss the FSA’s conclusion as totally bogus because after all organic food is grown more primitively.

Maybe, a better term could be “caveman chow” since this food is as “au natural” as it can get. Other terms could be “fanciful fodder” or even “radical rations” since organic food is more exotic, expensive and bought by individuals who consider themselves extreme enlightened eaters.

Another term that’s falls into the not quite right category is the “greenhouse effect.” It supposedly refers to the earth’s atmosphere ability to retain solar radiation. And too much CO2 is about to undo all the natural climate stability that’s been the norm for at least the last 10 minutes.

But greenhouse is not the mechanism by which the atmosphere works. These horticulture enclosures do not trap any more solar energy than the surrounding outside air. Unlike what one grade school teacher told me the sun’s rays don’t just bounce around inside the glass. Yeah, those solar rays are only powerful enough to penetrate glass once. Then forever remains inside, not!

Greenhouses work by removing convection, the transfer of heat energy via circulation. It’s what allows a pot of water on a stove to boil, and, of course, not watching it helps as well. Greenhouses enclose air that’s not acquiring any more energy than the atmosphere outside. It just doesn’t allow it to mix with the cooler air.

Leave the door open and the air inside will quickly cool down. The same can be seen leaving the car windows slightly rolled down in the summertime. The auto, i.e. mobile greenhouse, will not be the hotbox it would have been with the windows totally up. And, no those little, squiggly solar rays aren’t sneaking out the window cracks.

In fact, “greenhouse effect” has become a misnomer, for it originally referred to the “loose confinement of warm nighttime air near ground level by cloud cover.” Still, the atmosphere can have convection and circulate hot air from hotspots, sort of like how private jets transport politicians or whiney auto industry execs. This phenomenon forms the pressure systems that drive the wind and apparently most of Washington.

But, atmospheric gases actually acquire kinetic energy directly from photons of solar energy, and temperature just measures the average speed of that kinetics. Even pavement can acquire energy in this way. It’s a fine example of the “greenhouse effect.” Sometimes pavement can get so hot in the summer sun, an egg can be fried. While an adjacent plot of grass, an egg will merely drip down in a gooey, uncooked mess. So maybe, all pavements should just be excavated.

A more detailed explanation of this phenomenon can be found in an article by Tom Kondis, “Greenhouse Gas Facts and Fantasies” available at junkscience.com. It debunks the fictitious “trapped heat” property as well as other fanciful misuses, myths and the downright denials of scientific principles specifically the first two laws of thermodynamics.

So, a better term for “greenhouse effect” would be “greenie weenie just plain full of beanie effect.” Or better yet, it could also be dubbed, “hooey phooey air of total baloney effect.”