Re: Food irradiation---do seeds sprout? Did that denature th

[StevenFrey@aol.com]

Mr. Phelps responds to the questioning (mine) of his 'opinions' on 
irradiation of food:

In a message dated 4/2/00 6:38:20 PM Pacific Daylight Time, G writes:
<< Good Evening Mr. Fry, In expressing an opinion, I don't believe I claimed 
any special superpowers, however, if you wish to think so, be my guest.>>

Actually, Mr. Phelps, you did in so many words. Please re-read your 
statements. Sophistry doesn't count as a rebuttal.

<< It is also real common to see opinion ventured on the list, and I have no 
idea of how superior some are, I just look for the common sense.>>

Then you came to the right forum. But your noble search for common sense does 
not give you license to present false information here, as you did about 
enzymes, nitrates, and dissociation. If you expect to be granted credibility 
in scientific circles, you must stick to facts.

<>

What actual research have you done beyond your own tastebuds? And again, you 
practice sophistry by your references to the ever-famous, mysterious 
'others'; in this case, the 'ones' who have tasted irradiated foods and who 
agree with your beliefs (oh, excuse me, 'doubts') about them.  How many 
'others' disagree with you? Notable that you make no mention of them. 
Convenient.

<>

Please tell us why, dear sir, if you truly fear that irradiation might cause 
the food dangers which you specified, would you risk personal exposure to 
them?

<<Another thing that is noticed is the health food types like to eat sprouted 
seeds and grains, because they think this more beneficial, as the vitimin 
content is seen to rise, acidity change, etc.   One problem with the 
irradiated seeds is they won't sprout, which would tend to say the radiation 
effect killed them.   Logic used there.   This is one more obvious instance 
of a food being harmed by this technique.>>

Logic yes, but proof of causation, no. Moreover, irradiated seedlings can 
actually outgrow unirradiated ones. The key is how the experiment is 
controlled. Factors needing to be understood include not only what type of 
radiation are they exposed, along with how much and for how long, but what 
other environmental conditions are were at play at the time. Your logical 
assumption fails to consider any other objective factors other than radiation 
was involved. For example: if radiation automatically causes stunted growth 
in plants, then why do plants grow healthy anywhere in the world at all?  
There is natural radiation everywhere.
 
<< While you may be all for irradiation, there is an entire group of folks 
not so convinced as you that irradiation is all good.     My vote is still 
out-----did you hear me totally put down irradiation-------don't think 
so-----however I did raise some questions.   Irradiation does kill bacteria 
and all kinds of little unwanted organisms in food.  BUT-- What happens if a 
 country becomes depended on this technique, how does one go to a third world 
country and eat.    The question, from logic again, then must arise ---- Will 
the widespead use of this hide immune system compromise caused by bad air, 
 all kinds of things in the water and food.    How in the world did the human 
race survive all this time without irradiation?   Will we need a personal 
irradiator to travel outside the US to insure we don't get sick from little 
bugs in food?   Is there a thing called the immune system and does it protect 
us from disease-------and can it be compromized by toxic pollution?    Will 
irradiation mask this effect in the society---------and if it 
does------------will that be all good?>>

Your soapbox speech about sociological consequences of irresponsible use of 
radiation is unconvincing. The people of the world are actually pretty smart. 
If food irradiation is safe and effective, they will figure out how best to 
use it with no 'help' from you, thank you. Worse, your soliloquy is 
irrelevant. It is off the topic which you originally raised about whether 
food irradiation actually works and is safe. More anecdotal distractions! And 
you wonder why I accuse you of chicanery? 
 
<< Is that irresponsible to look at both the short and long term effects of 
irradiations or the even the taste effects, or how it impacts the organic 
lifestyles?  Some might call that learning and being open minded. >>

You raise a rhetorical question. You might as well say that you regard 
yourself as being the most interested in learning and being open minded. Good 
for you! Be sure to plant your flag high atop your moral highground for all 
of the unenlightened masses to see.

<<One more little thing to think about.   I would guess you would admit that 
UV-b is a form of ionizing radiation.    One of the things doctors are 
becoming more aware of is the effects of UV-b [from fluorescent lighting 
leakage] on PVC IV bags----ie the slight effects of radiolysis breaking down 
the PVC and producing some free chlorine ions that get injected into persons. 
Some doc's now place light barriers around these IV bags to lessen this 
effect. Now the same thing comes to mind with food irradiators.   Do they 
first seal up the bag--------then irradiate the food----------this so no air 
contamination gets sealed in with the food?    If so, what are these bags 
made from---------and what kinds of free radicals are induced in the food in  
the long term from this?>>

Now this question is the one that strains credulity the most. If irradiator 
companies knew that the packaging was going to result in a dangerous 
condition for consumers, what on earth would compel them to distribute such 
materials? As soon as the FDA and other agencies identified the culprits, 
there would go the company and all the financial investment put into it. Are 
you aware of an irradiator company that has actually distributed 
radiation-'poisoned' foods to the public? And you wonder why I called your 
comments irresponsible!

Finally, UV light is not ionizing radiation, although it can lead to 
degradation of certain polyvinyl materials (as if IV bag manufacturers are 
unaware of or are unwilling to do something about this possibility! Where is 
your proof?). We see yet another factual misstatement on your part. 
 
<<Folks have the right to be fully informed of all the in and outs of 
irradiation, and not just industry PR playing up the good side and losing the 
down side--------there is always a balance. Have you sought a balance? Jim 
Phelps, thinking and near Oak Ridge, the toxic superfund site.>>

And so......YOU are the people's champion, correct? Do you enjoy frightening 
(and thereby controlling) people with food-irradiation 'doubts' having no 
basis in fact? You, sir, are no more pure than the industry PR that you 
impugn.

Finally, balance in your context is irrelevant in the physical sciences. Only 
facts matter. For example: you have offered no objective evidence about food 
irradiation that proves your 'doubts'.

Steve Frey

    
  
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html