[ RadSafe ] Re: ABC (aus) 7;30 Report

Steven Dapra sjd at swcp.com
Thu Jan 22 20:00:53 CST 2009

Jan. 22

         Begging your pardon, I think plastic being leached into pet food 
as a result of irradiation is a long shot.  How many cats do you suppose 
are being fed this irradiated food?  Thousands?  Tens of thousands?  As I 
recall, that Australian TV program we were linked to earlier this week only 
referred to one sick cat.  The reporter neither said nor implied that cats 
(or any pets) were getting sick or or dying by the thousands.  I vote for 
this being the opportunistic use of irradiation as a villain.

Steven Dapra

At 12:14 PM 1/22/09 -0600, Kai Kaletsch wrote:
>What about the possibility of radiation causing chemicals in the packaging 
>being released into the food? Radiation certainly changes plastic and some 
>food cans seem to have a plastic lining. I can't think of anything that 
>would have a higher packaging to food ratio than gourmet cat food.
>----- Original Message ----- From: "Ivor Surveyor" <isurveyor at vianet.net.au>
>To: <radsafe at radlab.nl>; <Know_Nukes at yahoogroups.com>
>Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 3:34 AM
>Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: ABC (aus) 7;30 Report
>>I must thank those who have taken an interest in my posting on the
>>subject of irradiated cat food.   I was not previously aware of
>>possible biochemical changes in food composition such as low vitamin
>>A levels or the changes in fat composition and so on after irradiation.
>>I gather from the various references that it is by no means certain
>>that axonal degeneration in cats is due to the irradiated food.
>>None-the-less it is certainly seems to be suggestive.
>>One of the greatest problems in any science is the establishment of
>>causal relationships.  This is a subject that interested David Hume
>>in the eighteen century and more recently the late Professor Sir
>>Austin Bradford Hill (1) and the arguments are repeated by Rothman
>>and Greenland (2).  Hill stated 9 criteria for establishing a causal
>>relationship. In the final analysis it is not a question of ticking
>>off the Hill criteria one by one; it is necessary to exercise
>>judgment in the light of current knowledge.
>>However, in view of the responses it is clear to me that I was too
>>hasty in my judgment of the ABC program for which I apologize.
>>I am not sure how this relates to the irradiation of human food.  Two
>>differences immediately come to mind.  What are the destructive
>>effects on food of various modes of cooking?   Finally humans
>>(hopefully) have a much more varied diet then the monotonous diet
>>feed to some domesticated or laboratory animals?
>>I)      Hill AB.  Proc Royal Soc Med 1965; 58:295-300.
>>II)     Rothman KJ and Greenland S: In Modern Epidemiology (2nd Ed).
>>1998; Chap 2 page7-28.   Lippincott Williams &Wilkins.
>>Ivor Surveyor
>>[ isurveyor at vianet.net.au ]

More information about the RadSafe mailing list