"The Facts About Pasteurization and Homogenization of Dairy Products
by Jo Hartley (see all articles by this author)

(NaturalNews) The popular milk campaign has been very successful in reversing declining milk sales in America over recent years. Common teaching is that milk is a "perfect food," for building strong bodies in children and preventing osteoporosis as we age. The modern dairy products that are available in most supermarkets are nothing like the unpasteurized, unhomogenized milk of yesteryear, however. Today's milk looks the same, but it is not the same product.

Pasteurization was discovered by Louis Pasteur in the mid-1800s. Pasteurization compromises your milk. It destroys vitamins and interferes with calcium absorption. When you boil a liquid, you kill any bacteria and make that food sterile. In the process, you can't help but affect the taste and nutritional value of that food. Pasteurization is the process of heating a liquid to a high enough temperature to kill certain bacteria and disable certain enzymes. Milk can be pasteurized by heating it to a temperature of 145 degrees F for 30 minutes or 163 degrees F for 15 seconds (called flash pasteurization).

Ultra High Temperature (UHT) Pasteurization completely sterilizes a liquid. This process is utilized for the "boxes of milk" that can be shelved at room temperature. For UHT Pasteurization, milk is heated to 285 degrees F for a second or two.

Homogenization is a more recently invented process and it has been called "the worst thing that dairymen did to milk." When milk is homogenized, it is pushed through a fine filter at pressures of 4,000 pounds per square inch. In this process, the fat globules are made smaller by a factor of ten times or more. These fat molecules then become evenly dispersed throughout the milk.

Milk is a hormonal delivery system. When homogenized, milk becomes very powerful and efficient at bypassing normal digestive processes and delivering steroid and protein hormones to the human body (both your hormones and the cow's natural hormones and the ones they may have been injected with to produce more milk).

(continue from 1st page)
Homogenization makes fat molecules in milk smaller and they become "capsules" for substances that are able to bypass digestion. Proteins that would normally be digested in the stomach are not broken down and instead they are absorbed into the bloodstream.

The homogenization process breaks up an enzyme in milk which in its smaller state can then enter the bloodstream and react against arterial walls. This causes the body to protect the area with a layer of cholesterol. If this only happened once in a while it wouldn't be of big concern, but if it happens regularly there are long term risks.

Proteins were created to be easily broken down by digestive processes. Homogenization disrupts this and insures their survival so that they enter the bloodstream. Many times the body reacts to foreign proteins by producing histamines, and then mucus. Sometimes homogenized milk proteins resemble a human protein and can become triggers for autoimmune diseases such as diabetes or multiple sclerosis.

Two Connecticut cardiologists have demonstrated that homogenized milk proteins did in fact survive digestion. It was discovered that Bovine Xanthene Oxidase (BXO) survived long enough to affect every one of three hundred heart attack victims over a five-year time period. Even young children in the U.S. are showing signs of hardening of the arteries.(to be followed)

(continue from page 2)
Historical Summary

1600s and 1700s: Each cow yielded approximately one quart of milk per day. Cream was churned into butter and was stored to help provide nourishment during the hard winters.

1908: Pasteurization was introduced to reduce spoiling and the growth of bacteria
1919: Homogenization begun to prevent the separation of fat

1932: Synthetic Vitamin D first added to milk

1964: Plastic milk containers are first commercially introduced

1994: Monsanto Company develops the genetically engineered growth hormone (recombinant bovine somatotropin (rBST) or bovine growth hormone (BGH)) to boost dairy yield

The bottom line is that today's milk may contain assorted drugs and antibiotics, pesticides from treated grains, bacteria from infected animals, and genetically engineered growth hormones, in addition to being chemically altered into something that is incompatible with our bodies."

About the author
Jo Hartley
Wife, Mother of 8, and Grandmother of 2
Jo is a 40 year old home educator who has always gravitated toward a natural approach to life. She enjoys learning as much as possible about just about anything!
http://www.loftymatters.com

Seriously?

All that and not one word about how pasteurisation can prevent diseases like tuberculosis, diphtheria, polio, salmonella, strep throat, scarlet fever, and typhoid fever?

This may be somewhat enlightening:
http://shm.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/5/2/207

Some people have no idea.

Bugsy

'Milk was heavily contaminated with bacteria and was responsible for spreading a variety of diseases such as scarlet fever and tuberculosis.'

As indeed was the case.But going before that time factor from that article and following the rest of this subject thru history you'll find, folks were using silver containers to protect themselves, then overall cleanliness improved.

It is a proven fact when children are breastfed their immune system gets a chance to come to it's fullest development, given, as is the case today with heavy metals and pesticides etc, that the mother does not transfer same to the infant therefore diminishing greatly the infants immunity system not to forget the early vaccinations which are doing a lot of damage before their system is fully developed.

Actually eftfnc, I think you'll find that breastfeeding confers a level of immunity passed from the mother through antibodies in the milk. This mainly decreases incidences of respiratory diseases. This effect appears to drop off somewhat after a few months. It's got nothing to do with heavy metals, pesticides or vaccinations. I won't be diverted about the "silver containers" statement, except to say that is also pseudoscientific nutbaggery also.

And also, breastfeeding has nothing to do with the article you posted, which is about advocating consumption of raw milk. Personally, I think that it's an irresponsible stance from a public health point of view.

About the author
Jo Hartley
Wife, Mother of 8, and Grandmother of 2
Jo is a 40 year old home educator who has always gravitated toward a natural approach to life. She enjoys learning as much as possible about just about anything!

First up, I dismissed her as a weirdo off with the fairies, then I thought 'if she is a mother of 8 and a home educator' one has to admire her energy if nothing else.

Her blog tells me nothing and the authors website seems to be a Yank site trying to flog some 'snake oil' cure for everything.

If Jo is a good mother and home educator, she would not have much time to learn about much else.

What does 'gravitated towards the natural approach to life' mean. Did she give birth at home without medical intervention? Did she breastfeed all 8 kids? Does she cook over an open fire and grow all their own veges, make butter and kill their own meat? Did she vacinate the kids?

Having a website or using a ballpoint pen is hardly natural.

Some people have a strange concept of what is natural. Maybe she eats and drinks so I suppose that is natural. The 'natural' thing for her seems to be just spin.

Natural fluids are breastmilk and water. Why would she have the slightest interest in what is in or out of cows milk?

Banjo

What is it what you would like to told, what are you defending?
Would you rather listen to hogwash advertising spiels from the money grabbing milk/pharmaceutical industries? Besides..have you ever tasted raw cows milk fresh from the teat,oh may be you've never tasted mothers milk. Lets look at it...raw cows milk is for calves true? If you were to give calves homogenized/pasteurized milk what would happen to their immune system? Now if human mothers haven't got enough breast milk and haven't got goat's milk at hand, would we let the baby die or do we get the next best thing, which happens to be raw cows milk. Just add it up will you? Instead of knocking everything.

Raw cows milk is hardly the next best thing, eftfnc. Many babies died in the past from polio, scarlet fever and other diseases transmitted through raw milk. Imagine what they can do to a babies immune system.

These days we have infant formula, which is very good and contains all the necessary vitamins and minerals necessary for infant development, without the disease.

And whatever you may think, drinking raw milk that may be infected out of a silver container will not prevent you from catching polio or any other virus.

eftfnc,
I was breastfed as an infant but do not recall the taste. I milked a cow and the family consumed the raw milk for about 25 years, so yes I have a good idea of its properties and the taste.

If I recall my early rural studies correctly, its the firstmilk or colostrum that contains the anti-bodies that the newborn absorb. This is only for a number of days after birth and there after it does not matter what milk or milk replacer the calf drinks. I have fed dozens of calves with milk replacer which is like powdered milk but contains animal fat.

So your argument about anti-bodies does not stack up. The newborn can only absorb the anti-bodies in the first few days. That is why dairymen allow the calves to suck the cow for a period before putting the calf on replacer or skim milk and the mother returns to the milking herd.

Jo says she gravitates toward the natural things. Well humans are about the only animal that drinks milk from another animal. How can that be deemed natural. As I said before some people have quaint ideas about 'natural'.

I get heartly sick of people trying to convince others they support the natural things, when basicly they don't have a clue.

Pasturisation is done to kill any bacteria and that is fine by me as these days I don't know where the milk has come from or who handled it.

eftfnc,
Why can't we buy raw milk? Simply because it is unhygenic. If I sold you raw milk and one of your kids got sick I would be the worst in the world and you would sue the pants off me. Even if my methods were totally clean and the contaminant got in after you took delivery.

Its very simple really.

eftfnc, simple really. Raw milk carries potentially dangerous organisms. http://www.cdc.gov/healthypets/cheesespotlight/cheese_spotlight.htm

Probably not too bad if you get it straight from the cow, but any storage provides opportunities for these organisms to multiply and cause health problems.

Hence the requirement for Pasteurization.

Maybe eftfnc could get a cow? They've got lovely long eyelashes.

This one lives in a castle: http://www.guernsey-press.com/GP_on_line/scene_archive/2000/cow1.jpg

Ain't she gorgeous,Vanilla:-)

Agro, from the CDC also:
Enteric infections enter the body through the mouth and intestinal tract and are usually spread through contaminated food and water or by contact with vomit or feces. Every year an estimated 76 million cases of foodborne illness and 5,000 associated deaths occur in the United States. Much of this burden could be prevented with better science and prevention tools. Each year in the developing world, diarrheal illness from contaminated food and water causes 2 million deaths in young children. We are working to decrease the burden of bacterial foodborne and diarrheal illness by 50% by the year 2010.

The Enteric Diseases Epidemiology and Laboratory Branches are innovative public health investigative and consultative groups that identifiy causes, sources and solutions for bacterial foodborne and diarrheal infections to prevent the disability and death those diseases cause. Our central values are scientific integrity, rapid response to emergencies, service to states and nations, innovation through informed expertise, and close collaboration between disciplines of epidemiology and microbiology. We are 50 persons organized in teams: outbreak surveillance and response, national surveillance, FoodNet and diarrheal diseases.

Explain to me please, after all this pasteurizing,and homogenizing the above still occurs.

BTW
How many inspections do occur at the farm gate, to isolate diseased animals? Can anyone answer this?
I can remember after each milk pickup the cans were separately tested either at the farm gate or at the factory and not mixed with other farms batches until tests were cleared.

Ever tried to pasteurise and homogenise lettuce? Or chicken? Or eggs?

There are heaps of foods that can transmit disease through contamination, imagine what the rates could be without pasteurisation!

eftfnc, most of the enteric diseases occur following the consumption of leafy vegetables and poorly cooked meat. Neither are amenable to Pasteurization. Milk on the other hand is. It also used to be a major source of enteric bacterial problems before Pasteurization was used, now it's problems are insignificant.

Testing protocols need to be effective at managing the risks. Testing at the farm gate may be effective for some risks, but won't manage post farm-gate risks. For these risks you need to test later. Testing should also be relative to the risk. No point testing for things that carry no risk, or where a post-test practice can eliminate the risk.

Agro, This raw milk thing needs to be looked at as a whole, naturally.

There are too many things not looked at, like what does pasteurization of a food do to the food itself. Why don't we get a choice of quality of food with documented natural nutrition and not the artificial added crap.
Look at what pasteurization takes out what supposed to keep us healthy.
Here is a comic with some added wisdom about the overall picture.
http://www.naturalnews.com/023014.html Then tell me how far this is from the truth, please do not reply with: 'this is happening only in the US.'

eftfnc, I disagree that pasteurization takes out anything healthy out of milk. It removes some natural, but unhealthy, things like the bacterium that causes tuberculosis. Pasteurization does result in small losses (less than 10%) of folate and some other vitamins, but these losses are largely insignificant from a human health perspective. Some bovine enzymes are denatured, but these would be denatured in the human stomach when the milk was drunk anyway.

Pasteurization heats the product below the boiling point with the idea of reducing the numbers of organisms in the product by at least 5 orders of magnitude. This reduces them to such small numbers that they are unlikely to cause a health problem. http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/2004/504_milk.html

This is what Weston Price has to show on the subject:
http://www.realmilk.com/ppt/CampaignForRealMilk-13APR2008.PPT
and http://www.realmilk.com/ppt/index.html

This is what Stephen Barrett has to say about Weston A. Price, his ideas and how these ideas are being used http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/holisticdent.html

Excellent Agronomist. Finally, some sense.

I notice there was also some discussion of homeopathy on that QuackWatch site. See here: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article3798760.ece for a recent win of reason over this fraudulent "therapy".

Oh golly gosh people. Before you mention this person think about how you line yourselves up regarding his non-intelligence.I thought you were smarter then that!
Please do research on Stephen Barrett, M.D.(unlicensed)
http://www.iahf.com/antiquackbusters/20020105a.html
and http://www.stephenbarrettmd.blogspot.com/

eftfnc, I pointed to Stephen Barrett’s comments simply because it saved me repeating the same ad nauseum. It is not actually necessary to practise medicine to talk sense. You just need to be able to read and sort the wheat from the chaff. I suggest Barrett does this reasonably well. If you disagree with this assessment, please detail the places where Barrett has got it wrong and what is wrong with each particular issue and I will be happy to discuss them with you.

The point I was making was that the work of Weston A. Price is being used as a support for all sorts of quackery. Price was enamoured with the idea of the noble savage even going so far as to conclude that traditional diets would solve a host of ills that mankind suffers including heart disease and cancer. In this he was incorrect. However, some would seek to have these ideas as the basis of modern disease management. It is a bit like suggesting we should base modern medicine on the principles espoused by Samuel Hahnemann.

For these reasons, I can’t take the utterings of an organization based on the ideas of Weston A. Price seriously. Particularly when their argument was that in the 1920s heart disease and cancer were rare, but that these have become more common in the absence of raw milk. http://www.realmilk.com/why.html I should point out that coincidence is not causality. Male life expectancy in the US has increased from 56 to 76 over the same

Agro, My opinion on this creature SB and his associates does not warrant any writing space let alone one minute of thinking about his negativities. If you want to dismiss mentioned theories or practices from the past one only has to look at Pasteur to find that he is now also wrong, like so many other great men of their time. Yes, sorting out the chaff from the wheat is what I've been doing for years and I came to the same conclusion that you don't need a degree to know what is good for your health or for the environment for that matter.I like to see a healthy environment for my children and their off-spring and like to live a healthy life for what's left of it. If you are at all involved in the agro biz then couldn't you see that our soils are ruined and give almost nothing to the crops as essential nutrients for our consumption? It was a habit right thru the wheatbelt to burn stubble (as recommended by past gov.agencies) instead of plowing it back to enrich the soils.Organic is the way to go, so it is with milk and all meat products.No more Sodium Nitrite preserving of meat (causing cancer tumors) and no more vac's for farm animals.
It sounds simplistic I know.. but I would have to write a book, what I have found out about healthy living and what to do if disaster happens.B.T.W. Agro about your past admission, did you see this program on telly last week about DNA manipulation for the positive? There is hope after all and it is getting closer:-)

Fascinating discussion.

I can't add to the arguments on health, but I can tell you that I worked for a while at a small provincial family-owned dairy, that performed the "slow pasteurisation" described in eftfnc's lead-in post - the "145 degrees F for 30 minutes" variety.

The milk was neither sterilized, nor homogenized, so had that tell-tale separation between the cream at the top and the rest of the milk.

The milk tasted noticeably better than that produced by the quick 'n' nasty process, and the dairy had a scattering of devoted "I wouldn't drink that mass-produced stuff if you paid me" followers.

Silver-top was standard, but we also did a gold-top "jersey" line that had a higher cream content.

We also had a special "green top" for Passover. I don't remember how that was produced, but I do recall when delivering it, that the outside of the bottle was slightly sticky.

Shops and supermarkets wouldn't stock any of this stuff, of course, because the profit margins were too low for them, so every bottle had to be delivered to the doorstep.

The dairy eventually went out of business in the early seventies, as taste started to take a back seat to convenience.

p.s. I'm not sure whether this is coincidence or not, but my cholesterol level has always been found to be in the "astronomic" category.

eftfnc, I don’t dismiss things from the past, just because they are the past. I don’t know what part of Pasteur’s writings you are referring to him being wrong, but he certainly wasn’t right on everything. I don’t dismiss the correct parts, just the wrong parts. Pasteur’s observation that heating of liquids stops them from spoiling as quickly is correct and has been backed by a significant amount of future research. The assertions about raw milk are wrong and have been shown repeatedly to be wrong. Taking this quote from Jo Hartley “As most food goes bad as it ages, raw milk gets better.” I hardly need point out how wrong it is.

Strange that you refuse to read Stephen Barrett’s work because he doesn’t practice medicine (he was a psychiatrist so it is unlikely he would have worked as a GP), but you endorse Jo Hartley’s comments despite the fact that she doesn’t practice medicine only. How do you decide what information to accept? Only information that supports your existing prejudices?

I am involved in agriculture and work with lots of farmers. Almost none of these farmers ever burn their stubble. None of them would plow their stubble into the soil either. This is because tillage is extremely damaging to soil, causing soil degradation, compaction, erosion, releasing carbon to the atmosphere and reducing microbial populations – all things these farmers want to get away from. These farmers practice stubble-retention, no-till farming. In fact, tillage is so damaging that these farmers would rather burn stubble than plow it back into the soil.

Agro: It beats me where you've read, “As most food goes bad as it ages, raw milk gets better.”
SB was a psychiatrist, and sifting thru his courtcases showing to be a self proclaimed expert,he was losing most lawsuits.
Not very intelligent. After all it is not how much you have learned, but how you use it, at whatever level your knowledge is.
Besides one book reads the mind of the author much better compared to the next, sometimes we pick it up thru our gut feeling by just reading a foreword.My gut feeling tells me heaps of positive things about what Jo Hartley writes.
I do also have a tendency to read the Weekly Times, like last weeks 'in brief' about organic food proven to be better than conventional grown produce.25% better it claims.I agree as I have proven that myself with brix readings.I also know by testing our city tapwater how much (ppm) of crap does not belong into our drinking water, hence I do not give my family this to drink. Coming back on milk, I prefer to feed my family raw milk if I can buy it somewhere around Melbourne. It is not hard to make it safe to drink if I am in doubt about it's cleanliness. Just to inform you, when you put two open milk cartons in the fridge, lightly spray colloidal silver into one and none into the other, the difference between the two of staying drinkable is one month in summertime. Even hospitals/dental clinics used silver dishes to sanitize implements in, lets not talk about spacecraft where they use silver items to store food or fluids in.Did I mention that most of my uncles and aunties were born on cattle farms in Friesland, you know where the friesian cattle originated from? They used silverlined cans on the side of the roads for pickup by the factory trucks sometimes standing in the hot sun for hours.Each cow was registered by photo and treated as an individual and recognised by their peculiar attitudes which nowadays is only done by organic farmers.

Banjo:
http://loftymatters.com/2008/02/26/23/

eftfnc, I read “As most food goes bad as it ages, raw milk gets better.” in the link that you directed readers to in your first post on this thread. Did you not read this article before suggesting that we read it?

I am afraid it was as I feared, you accept or reject material based not on the evidence that might support it, but how well the comments confirm your existing prejudices. I trained as a scientist and was trained not to do this, but to look at the quality of the evidence presented. Therefore, I don’t really care very much whether Stephen Barrett has ever practiced medicine or has ever been involved in a court case. This is not germane to why I suggested his article might be a good read. The reason, as I explained, was that Barrett gets most of the points correct, the research that I am aware of generally supports the statements he makes and it saves me from having to re-hash the arguments.

The fact that you don’t want to deal with the arguments made in the article, but instead are trying to “shoot the messenger”, leaves me with no option but to conclude that you only accept points that confirm your current prejudices. Also, that you have never contemplated that these prejudices might be wrong. This is religious thinking.

As to the use of colloid silver, you are aware of course that over consumption of silver can lead to health conditions, notably argyria? The TGA has effectively regulated colloid silver products and that the only legal use is for purification of drinking water? http://www.tga.gov.au/docs/html/csilver.htm

Agro the only url I posted at the end was http://www.loftymatters.com

I don't see any others. If I would have seen that mentioned comment I would not have supported that idea as I do agree with your reaction about "aging made milk better", it is however possible where ever you've read it that it was meant to describe a milk fermenting process. As far as colloidal silver is concerned argeria can only happen when overloading of silver takes place, as in large particles and over a long time. I am talking to a scientist all this time? Well this is what I am talking about:
http://healthyagain.biz/silvervideo.html
I have used this stuff for 4years plus, and I still don't look gray/blue

Ok here is where you've found it, and typically pulled the statement apart as a good scientist would do.(fun intended:-)

From: Beneficial Bacteria
http://www.naturalnews.com/023083.html
"Raw milk is a living food with amazing self-protective properties. As most food goes bad as it ages, raw milk gets better. From helpful bacterial fermentation, the digestibility of enzymes, vitamins, and minerals all increases."

eftfnc, you are correct and I need to apologise. The link you give does not direct to the article at all. It goes to someone’s blog. I couldn’t find the article anywhere on the blog at all, so ran a search and came up with this article http://www.naturalnews.com/023083.html Written by the same Jo Hartley and covering pretty much the same ground as what you posted. That is where the quote was.

As to argyria, it is the amount that is consumed that is the concern, not what size the particles are. It is a rare condition these days now that silver is no longer used as an antibiotic, but it still happens: http://dermatology.cdlib.org/111/case_reports/argyria/wadhera.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11107524

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17177941

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12839605

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18025945

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12361115

Great stuff Agro, but if one was to have a closer look at the "subject at hand" than one would come up with:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18438688?ordinalpos=3&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
and the links on the right in that page.
If you did look at the video presentation, you could surmise we are really talking "nano" here.

eftfnc, much of the time I do struggle to follow where you are going? What has a system of making nanoparticles of silver got to do with silver colloid related argyria? Are you suggesting that those suffering from argyria only got a problem because they consumed nanoparticles of the stuff? That is clearly wrong as the silver colloids are only microscopic and in at least two of the cases, it was silver mixed in solution that did the trick. Or are you suggesting that you are only using nanoparticles of silver and will therefore be immune to argyria? If you are using silver colloids, they are small but not quite nano.

And I didn’t look at the video, because I didn’t want to have to pay for it.

Sorry Agro, if I am confusing you by sounding confusing.I am not talking about Silver salts,where according to various articles Argyria was caused in a few people. I was talking about colloidal silver and nano silver which both are in liquid suspension. Almost all,I dare say all argyria cases were caused by homemade col.silver generators.I made one myself with the result that the fluid was hazy and did not use it because of it.That solution would have given me argyria as the particles were too large.Now the proper made c.silver is clear as water, as the particles are smaller.
The nano silver solution if you were to take a milk tanker full you still wouldn't get this argyria.I would advice you to look at this film because this chap explains it in full. No this url does not automatically rip a creditcard of ye'. Just click on the screen to watch and ignore the bottom bit, it will only cost you time.
http://healthyagain.biz/silvervideo.html

eftfnc, the case studies included a variety of sources of silver: silver salts in solution, silver colloids, both home made and purchased over the internet. The factors that influenced development of argyria included the amount of total silver consumed and the ability of that silver to be absorbed into the body. The second is only a factor of form of silver, not size of particle. Smaller particle size will not save you from argyria unless you consume less silver total.

I find it somewhat strange that you are such an ardent consumer of organic food, but yet are happy to ingest something as unnatural as silver colloids.

This whole 'organic' 'natural' 'healthy' mindset has me stumped. It seems totally schizoid to me.

One the one hand the organic types are wanting raw milk that can contain viruses and disease causing bacteria for 'health reasons'.

And yet they would reject a heat treatment as being 'unhealthy' in favour of a metallic colloid suspension treatment that is not a natural part of the human diet (or nearly any diet). Silver doesn't affect viruses either.

So, while silver is hailed as a miracle sanitiser, just about every other metal that can form ions is treated as a pollutant or chronic toxin (with good reason). And a simple heat treatment is somehow unnatural? I really don't get it.

There's other stuff that's weird too, but I'll leave it there.

Bugsy, this is a free forum and hopefully I was enticing you and others into a conversation, sorry I must have failed with you, maybe you aren't that interested in a health subject. As far as this raw milk is concerned to each his own, don't feel 'Bugged' by it,just hope over to another more interesting discussion where you can carry your weight.
Agro,repeatedly your telling me that I don't look at my own postings or don't read the responses, I'll tell you what, you are a tough cookie, and I am not even trying to convince you of anything. Look at the film url and we don't need to play ping-pong about silver anymore. Give me some feedback on it please.