> > So, we should not be concerned about increasing the stress on the body
> > by introducing even more free radicals? Seems to me that we should
> > look
> > for ways to decrease the incidence of free radical formation...not
> > challenge the bodies limits simply because we want to justify a means
> > of
> > industrial food production.
> The issue is practical importance. You probably get more "radiolytic
> products" into your body by stubbing your toe than by eating irradiated
> meat. Getting a suntan is orders of magnitude more dangerous. Losing
> sleep worrying about being hit by an asteroid would be time better
Are you saying that radiolytic products (URPs specifically) are created
by injury to the body?
> > > With all these things, dose is the critical issue.
> > Yes, I'm unaware of the long range studies done to assure that these
> > doses of unique chemical byproducts are safe for us all to consume on
> > a
> > daily basis.
> This subject has been studied for many years. I offered to send you
> hundreds of literature citations that I found doing a few minutes of
> searching. You apparently don't want to see these.
Yes, please do send the information to me. In the Food and Water
article the author suggests that most of the studies are lacking in
various ways. Is this just alarmist political ranting?
> Probably no amount of evidence would convince you that irradiation is
> okay, because there are issues here that go beyond safety. Let's talk
> about those political issues. They are more relevant and interesting
> than safety.
Do you believe that irradiation is the best way to deal with the
problems of industrial food production?
To Unsubscribe: Email email@example.com with "unsubscribe sanet-mg".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email firstname.lastname@example.org with the command