[ RadSafe ] Re: ABC (aus) 7;30 Report
eic at shaw.ca
Fri Jan 23 10:38:48 CST 2009
Please take a look at the link that Leo provided a few days ago ("...go the
Origen website at http://www.orijen.ca/orijen/about/ and click on "Australia
Only" toward the top left-hand side of the page." ). It has been a while
since I looked at it, but my recollection is that it is more than 1 cat and
that the product had a fairly limited distribution. This issue was discussed
on Radsafe a few months ago and, after reading the orijen release, my
comment was something like 'these guys don't seem to be complete nutcases'
which is what I (like you) had expected from only looking at the headlines.
I would still agree with you that degradation of plastic is probably not the
cause of the observed neurological symptoms. However, do you only consider
or investigate something if it seems to have an a priori probability of more
than 50% (the usual meaning of "probably")? I would disagree with this
criterion. So, what is a reasonable a priori probability to use as a cutoff
criterion for further investigation? To me, it seems that it would not take
a lot of resources to look into the possibility of packaging materials
interacting with their contents during and after food irradiation, while the
implications could be quite far reaching if this is found to be an issue.
So, the required a priori probability would be quite low.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steven Dapra" <sjd at swcp.com>
To: <radsafe at radlab.nl>
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 8:00 PM
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Re: ABC (aus) 7;30 Report
> 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
> 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.
>>>[ isurveyor at vianet.net.au ]
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
> the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.12/1910 - Release Date: 1/22/2009
More information about the RadSafe