avi@pegasus.UUCP (Avi E. Gross) (02/24/84)
I am hearing all kinds of comments about RADIOACTIVITY in the irradiated food. I would be willing to bet that there is more exposure to radiactivity from smoking a cigarette (known fact) than from eating the typical irradiated food. The radiation they are exposed to is absorbed by them, but does not generate a long-lasting radiation response. The problems that could arise come from another level. The radiation is expected to kill all organisms that happen to be alive in the food. Typically, this happens because critical structures in the organisms are damaged by the radiation -- such as nucleic acid chains and proteins. At lower levels, some of the organisms will just be kept from reproducing, and will therefore just die after a while. As the rads are increased, you get a dead bacterium. Many viruses would not be affected while in a dormant phase. The problem is that the radiation can create broken chemical bonds that result in new (potentially harmful) chemicals in the food. Depending on the food and radiation types involved, you can get free-radical formation and recombination into compounds that are potentially carcinogenic. These would be formed in very low levels, and will not cause much damage in a dead entity that does not have an active metabolism. However, it can potentially cause us harm if we consume it. EVERYTHING seems to cause cancer in high enough dozes. Canadian rats have been proven to always get cancer (if they don't die first) if they consume twenty times their body weight on a daily basis!!!! To sum up, I am not convinced that there is a significant amount of potential damage in irradiated food. Even if there was, what is the risk compared to eating food that is prepared in other ways, such as "smoking", "salting", chemical preservatives, "overcooking followed by canning", or being left in the refrigerator for weeks? I know that smoke leaves carcinogens, salt causes other problems, cooking can make you lose vitamins, and refrigerators only keep food for so long. I would rather eat irradiated food, than get botulism, among other cute illnesses. Irradiated food is probably at least as safe as sacharin and aspartame. :-) It is definitely safer than tobacco, and we are stupid enough to subsidize people who farm and sell that (ob)noxious substance. -- -=> Avi E. Gross @ AT&T Information Systems Laboratories (201) 576-6241 suggested paths: [ihnp4, allegra, cbosg, hogpc, ...]!pegasus!avi
cdanderson@watarts.UUCP (02/26/84)
Regarding the comment of Avi E. Gross, i.e. "what is everyone
worried about when you consider the level of danger from smoking, salting,
processed food, etc.", two points must be made. These are:
1) Some of us are actually cutting out or limiting the amount of
these products in our lives and do not welcome others;
and 2) The argument that if one is exposed to X amount of danger from
source A and puts up with it one should put up with source B if its' danger
level is less than or equal to X is a fallacious and harmful one.
In the case where two sources of danger exist, each with danger
level X, the result is not a cancellation of the two or even "just" X, but
X times X, i.e. a far greater health hazard.
It should be criminal for producers to try to neglect or argue against
synergistic effects in the way they have to date. So far, one of the only
substances consumed in a mass fashion where the users are "now" warned about
such effects is the Pill, and even then not all are warned or to the extent
warranted. There is now a case before Ontario courts where a women was advised
to go on the Pill and not warned about negative side effects or symptoms of
such. Shortly after doing so (in 1968 or '72, I think it is the latter though)
she suffered a stroke (preceeded by headaches) which left her partially
paralyzed.
Not happy with even X,
Cameron Anderson
watmath!watarts!cdanderson