Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

market-farming - re: FDA, NPR, Food irradiation

market-farming AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Market Farming

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Dave Bennett" <dbennett AT micoks.net>
  • To: "market farming" <market-farming AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: re: FDA, NPR, Food irradiation
  • Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 8:11:00 -0500


Hmm. You haven't posted any support to the claim originally made either. BS
is just that. I understand what you've said here, but there is no support for
the original outrageous claim. (Cute the way you worked the whole human
deformative thing into this, though!)

Data & information are freely available anywhere. But knowledge is more
useful & is much more than the inundation of this list with a series of
informational blurbs that do not relate to the topic at hand: the poster's
original falsehood.

Your opinions of my postings are solely yours. With the amount of off-list
messages I'm receiving from members of this list supporting my posts on this
issue I'm feeling like Sheriff Bart in Blazing Saddles: an underground
success.

If you have anything to actually say concerning this issue other than "don't
trust the FDA", then say it.

Your credentials are no more impressive than those of all the people lined up
on the other side of this issue. I'm sure that in your mind everyone on the
other side of this issue is a "Homer Simpson" & that there isn't one caring,
concerned parent in the lot.

I think this topic is dead on this list since no one has been able to provide
any actual proof or test results to back up what appears to be wishful
thinking.


"Ava Devenport" <essenheal AT iname.com> wrote:
__________
>Gee, step away from your computer for a few days...now that I've picked up
>my messages, I'd like to respond to some issues.
>
>#1. Any one who looks to the FDA regarding any type of safety issue (food
>or otherwise) is foolish. The FDA does not do any testing, they 'receive
>information' and decide whether or not you can market it. If there was any
>safety testing within the FDA, we wouldn't have many of the drugs, etc.
>that are so commonly used today. So many of our advanced pharmacueticals
>have side-effects that can create symptoms, etc, that are much worse than
>the so-called disease which they supposedly remedy.
>
>Just take a look at some of the drugs that were passed back in the 50's for
>morning sickness, one drug created children born with such horrific birth
>defects that they only had flaps for arms, legs or both. Another set up a
>wonderful genetic defiency that created female children which are born with
>the probability of uterine cancer at such an early age, those women will
>never conceive a child, if they would even live long enough to raise that
>child.
>
>Today we have drugs for 'male pattern baldness' which a female in her
>child-bearing years (heaven forbid if she's pregnant!) can't even touch for
>fear of birth defect. Listen to the ads on t.v. for some of the allergy
>prescription drugs, I know I'd rather have a month or so of itching eyes
>and stuffy nose than lose my liver to toxic poisoning. The only thing the
>FDA is good for, is labelling. I'll take my chances on listening to my
>body when it sends me symptoms (symptoms are your body telling you
>something is not right), promoting my diet to help enhance my own immune
>system, and I'll never fight a fever with meds, better to get in a hot tub
>of water, soak for 20 minutes while drinking cinnamon or ginger tea and
>bring my body temp up, not down. Fever is your body 'killing' the
>bacteria, virus, etc. I'm going to give it all the help it needs. Got
>allergies, take Bee Pollen, unhealthy liver, milk thistle. And wouldn't
>you know that a dish of good fresh green beans will level out my
>blood-sugar level in a couple of heart-beats, and God Bless epsom salts for
>pulling the toxins and swelling right of my body and sea salt for putting
>the minerals in!
>
>#2. Food Irradiation: one of my pet peeves. Let's have a little lesson
>here. Irradiation of food has become an 'economical' boon to the United
>States as it is the only financially sound use of "radioactive waste"
>instead of finding a way to get rid of (which is impossible as energy only
>changes form, doesn't dissappear). Irradiation only kills bacteria,
>nothing else. Irradiation creates "free radicals" within the food, which
>we then consume. Free radicals do not dissipate! Free radicals cause
>cancer! We are eating cancer-causing food when we eat irradiated food.
>
> a. Radiation Biology: the branch of biology which is concerned with the
>effects of radiation on living systems. X-rays are bundles of energy.
>When x-rays interact with living matter (produce, animals, humans), these
>energy bundles strike electrons that orbit the nuclei of atoms. The atom
>is neutral in biologic tissue, and when it's electrons are struck by
>x-radiation energy, they are ejected from their orbits. This process,
>called 'ionization', initiates radiation damage.
>
> b. Measurement of X-Radiation: this is done by placing an air-filled
>chamber in the path of an x-ray beam, the x-ray ionizes the air, the amount
>of ionization (detected electrically) yields a measure of x-ray exposure
>known as the roentgen (R). One R is defined as 4.16 billion ionizations
>produced by x-rays in one cubic cc of dry air at 0 degrees celsius (32
>degrees F) at one atmosphere of pressure (760 millimeters of mercury (mm
>Hg). X-ray absorption imparts energy to living tissue. The unit of
>absorbed dose is the rad (radiation absorbed dose). A unit of energy used
>in radiological physics is called the erg. One rad is 100 ergs of energy
>absorbed by one gram (1/454 of one pound) of tissue. Some accuracy is
>sacrificed to state that one R (air dose) is roughly equal to one rad
>(tissue absorbed dose). Since ionizing radiation may be particulate (alpha
>and beta) as well as x-ray or gamma ray, the unit rem (radiation equivalent
>man) was formulated. This is the unit which provides a means of measuring
>the differential effects of exposure to various types of ionizing
>radiation. The prefix "milli" indicates a sub-unit, there are 1,000
>millirems in one rem.
>
> c. Biological effects of X-Rays: This applies to all forms of x-ray
>including gamma-rays emitted by radioactive materials (biological effects
>are important as it refers to the "harmful nature" of unnecessary radiation
>exposure and procedures). All Radiation Damage Is Cumulative! Any Amount
>Of Radiation Is Capable Of Producing Injury To The Organism!
>When an organism (plant, animal, human) receives repeated doses of
>radiation over any period of time, total amount of damage accumulated is
>greater than that of any individual dose (1+1 still=2). The theory that
>there is no amount of radiation so small as to be harmless is referred to
>as a non-threshold dose-response relationship. That is, there may be no
>absolutely "safe" dose below which we can be certain that no radiation
>injury will be produced. Further, cells which are non-differentiated (ie:
>primitive or non-specialized) are more sensitive to irradiation than those
>which are highly specialized. Within the same cell families, the immature
>forms, which are generally primitive and rapidly dividing (such as immature
>produce, fruit, animals, people), are more sensitive to irradiation than
>the older, mature cells which have specialized in function and have ceased
>to divide. There are long-term and short-term effects of irradiation which
>many investigations have provided convincing evidence that ionizing
>radiation may result in an increased risk of certain disease long after the
>initial exposure.
>
> d. Genetic Long-term effects: Radiation striking sperm or egg cells
>(plants have these!) can alter the genetic nuclei of these cells. This is
>called genetic mutation. It is specificall y here that the change may be a
>non-threshold phenomenon, meaning that mutations can be produced with VERY
>SMALL doses of radiation and the possibility of mutation increases as the
>radiation dose is increased. A mutation is a permanent, transmissable
>change in the characteristics of an organism and are usually harmful,
>increasing susceptibility to chronic disease and/or biochemical
>abnormality. These somewhat harmful and very common mutations are the
>cause of greatest concern as they are not easily diagnosed and neither are
>they self-limiting. Genetic damage is faithfully reproduced. A mutation
>in the plant world, pollinated with another mutation, then irradiated once
>more sets up a diabolical process that can become so harmful as being
>lethal! We won't even touch on the ramifications of human mutations (but
>to all concerned, please be aware that the maximum annual permissable dose
>for occupational radiation exposure is much lower than many x-ray
>procedures that patients are exposed to)!
>
> e. ION: an atom or molecule that has lost or gained one or more electrons
>and is therefore electrically charged; also a "free-ion" or
>"free-radical".
> IONIZATION: the process of producing "ions".
> IONIZING RADIATION: radiation that is energetic enough to produce
>"ions".
> ION PAIR: a closely associated positive ion and negative ion (usually an
>electron) having charges of the same magnitude and formed from a neutral
>atom or molecule by radiation.
>
>Conclusion: If ANYONE tells you that irrdaiating fruits, vegetables, etc.
>is not harmful, come back and read this again! And if you believe there is
>a form of radiation ending in a process that is not ionizing, come back and
>let me sell you the Brooklyn Bridge.
>
>And Dave, you don't even need to ask me where my facts came from because
>I'll tell you up front...ANY State Board of Health, Division of Industrial
>Hygiene and Radiological Health, Radiological Health Section; of which I am
>a Board Certified member. Also, I don't understand your need to feel that
>you have to harrass members of this list for facts, figures, etc. when you
>obviously haven't the facts yourself. This list bridges all aspects of
>human interaction and when an individual "gives" you information, you
>should take that bit of knowledge by the hand, be thankful of it and either
>use it or not. And if you do "know better", then offer up your suggestions
>instead of criticisms (but drop the sarcasms you seem to 'need' to attach).
> You're gaining an extreme amount of education and information from this
>list, why don't you start reciprocating instead of trying to demean. I
>personally have stopped reading your posts, unless they are of common
>interest to me that someone else has posted, because your negativity
>regarding "everything and everyone" takes away from the joy and
>enlightenment I receive here.
>
>Blessings,
>Ava
>
>---
>You are currently subscribed to market-farming as: dbennett AT micoks.net
>To unsubscribe send a blank email to $subst('Email.Unsub')
>To subscribe send email to lyris AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
>with message text containing: subscribe market-farming
>
>


Dave




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page