This is one of the great 'forgotten' conspiracies of our time. Back in the 70's they used to put a little label on food stuffs that had been irradiated but the labeling soon vanished and with it the public outcry. I was going to put together a post on this very same topic, creepy stuff.

Frankly, I do not care if my food is irradiated. I wish I knew for certain that it was. I miss eating cannibal sandwiches, a passion of many years ago. If US meat was irradiated I could eat them again.

for meat irradiation.

Considering that prolonged exposure to, well, anything can cause cancer, I highly doubt the trace radiation found in these items, if even measurable, contributes appreciable to the rates of cancer.

MFP

Originally posted by Bibliophile

for meat irradiation.

LOL!!! Well, it does add substantial flavor...

Bombarding the food with gamma- or x-rays doesn't leave behind any radiation in the food. All it would do is kill off anything living in it, such as harmful bacteria. It just sterelizes and disinfects. Also, it makes the foodstuffs last longer.

The idea that this is harmful just goes to show the ignorance of people.

The question isn't wether residual radiation poses a hazard, because it's, after all, measurable, the real problem is the loss of nutrition value, and microwave-style side effects, which remain unexplained, mostly.

Bombarding the food with gamma- or x-rays doesn't leave behind any radiation in the food. All it would do is kill off anything living in it, such as harmful bacteria. It just sterelizes and disinfects. Also, it makes the foodstuffs last longer.

The idea that this is harmful just goes to show the ignorance of people.

The question isn't wether residual radiation poses a hazard, because it's, after all, measurable, the real problem is the loss of nutrition value, and microwave-style side effects, which remain unexplained, mostly.

Well, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that since the first world countries like USA, Italy, UK, etc. are on average people by larger, healthier individuals than their third world counterparts, the loss of nutrition isn't affecting you that much. The third world is filled with horrible diseases not seen in the other parts of the world, and people there are usually smaller framed. I can vouch for this first hand having visited Georgia and Turkmenistan several times.

MFP

P.S. Extra for your avatar, Cmdr!

[edit on 5/25/2006 by bsl4doc]

Long Lance is in the right territory. There is more to food than vitamins and crap.

The concern here is what is the radiation doing to the food at the atomic and molecular level? Its no secret that intense forms of radiation, especially gamma rays, have an effect on ionization and molecular structure of things that are exposed to them. What sort of unseen byproducts and changes are being made to the food that arent being looked for or detected? Exposing food to radiation cannot be harmless as is claimed.

Well, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that since the first world countries like USA, Italy, UK, etc. are on average people by larger, healthier individuals than their third world counterparts, the loss of nutrition isn't affecting you that much. The third world is filled with horrible diseases not seen in the other parts of the world, and people there are usually smaller framed. I can vouch for this first hand having visited Georgia and Turkmenistan several times.

I don't see what body size has to do with it, or how being larger boned and taller is somehow healthier and better than being small boned. Central asian ethnic groups are smaller by nature, not by nutrition. Russians dont have the best diets in the world, niether do the baltic countries, yet they are quite tall. And the tallest people in the world, the Montenegrans, formerly of Yugoslavia, certainly did not live in western conditions. People in japan are smaller than westerners, and not only have a longer life expectancy, but lower rates of just about everything that ails us in the west.

In fact, the west may have higher life expectancy, but we also have higher rates of obesity, heart problems, liver problems, cancer, diabetes, strokes, digestive disorders, psychological problems, and a host of other ailments of a chronic nature. So longer life does not mean a healthier or better quality of life.

Originally posted by Long Lance
The operation was a success, but the patient died. Norma died after being given a blood transfusion where the blood had been warmed in a microwave oven. This was our first big clue to the fact that heating things in a microwave does

The difference between a blood transfusion and food reheated in a microwave? The blood cells are alive, while the cells that compose the food are dead.

I don't see what body size has to do with it, or how being larger boned and taller is somehow healthier and better than being small boned. Central asian ethnic groups are smaller by nature, not by nutrition. Russians dont have the best diets in the world, niether do the baltic countries, yet they are quite tall. And the tallest people in the world, the Montenegrans, formerly of Yugoslavia, certainly did not live in western conditions. People in japan are smaller than westerners, and not only have a longer life expectancy, but lower rates of just about everything that ails us in the west.

In fact, the west may have higher life expectancy, but we also have higher rates of obesity, heart problems, liver problems, cancer, diabetes, strokes, digestive disorders, psychological problems, and a host of other ailments of a chronic nature. So longer life does not mean a healthier or better quality of life.

You're right, there is more to it, but let's think for a second. On of my favorite comparisons is between central Americans during the Mayan era and today. If you look at the doorways of Mayan ruins, they are small enough that modern central Americans have to duck. The introduction of a different, more balanced diet increased the osteoblastic activity by allowing more proteins and nutrients to be absorbed. The typical Asian diet consists of mostly vegetables. The typical russian diet is high in meats and carbohydrates. The meats and carbohydrates aid in bone formation much more than the vegetables. Thus, larger size. However, if we take a natural look at the human as an animal, which do you think would survive more often? One that is larger ad has denser muscle? Perhaps.

MFP

Originally posted by bsl4doc

However, if we take a natural look at the human as an animal, which do you think would survive more often? One that is larger ad has denser muscle? Perhaps.

MFP

No. Size of body has little to do with survival. if you went by that, then the smaller individuals would appear to have the advantage, as the majority of people in the world come from smaller stock. Survival would depend on many factors, like environment. For example, a larger body would be worse for survival in a desert or jungle nevironment, as a larger body needs more water and generates more heat. generally, desert dwellers of the world tend to be of smaller size and finer bone, with a few exceptions. Smaller bodies also require fewer calories to survive, and need less food. In a jungle environment, smaller persons stay cooler and will find it easier to move through dense jungle. Look at the pygmies and native south American tribes who live in the amazon. Larger bodies are favored in colder, wetter climates, like Europe. A larger body is better protected against the cold, and since game animals tend to be bigger in the northern zones, bigger bodies would be better for hunting them. Taller bodies also seem to fare better in grassland environments. In extreme cold climates, short, squat, stocky bodies have proven to be the best model for survival, as we can observe with the Eskimos, Inuits, Mongolians, and Siberians. The retain heat much more efficently,, radiate less heat, and store fat better for longer periods of time.

If you are refering to combative abilities, body size makes no difference. We see in history numerous examples of smaller statured people dominating those with larger builds. The shorter Romans Conquered the taller celts. the short mongols dominated the taller Persians, Aryans, and Slavs. The shorter Turks dominated the taller Byzantines. And so on.

Body size and muscle doesnt matter. A large person with big muscles is not necessarily any better equipped for survival than a smaller person with smaller muscles. In fact, during food shortages, it can be a disadvantage, as bigger people need more food.

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

Originally posted by bsl4doc

However, if we take a natural look at the human as an animal, which do you think would survive more often? One that is larger ad has denser muscle? Perhaps.

MFP

No. Size of body has little to do with survival. if you went by that, then the smaller individuals would appear to have the advantage, as the majority of people in the world come from smaller stock.

That's curious...considering the average height of a population increases with better diet and access to proper nutrition...

Survival would depend on many factors, like environment. For example, a larger body would be worse for survival in a desert or jungle nevironment, as a larger body needs more water and generates more heat. generally, desert dwellers of the world tend to be of smaller size and finer bone, with a few exceptions.

Hrm...you seem to contradict basic medical science here. African peoples tend to be tall and slender, thus increasing surface area. This allows for more heat release through perspiration. Where did you get the idea that those living in arid climates typically are smaller? That seems a bit daft to me. I'd be interested in your sources though.

Smaller bodies also require fewer calories to survive, and need less food. In a jungle environment, smaller persons stay cooler and will find it easier to move through dense jungle. Look at the pygmies and native south American tribes who live in the amazon. Larger bodies are favored in colder, wetter climates, like Europe. A larger body is better protected against the cold, and since game animals tend to be bigger in the northern zones, bigger bodies would be better for hunting them. Taller bodies also seem to fare better in grassland environments. In extreme cold climates, short, squat, stocky bodies have proven to be the best model for survival, as we can observe with the Eskimos, Inuits, Mongolians, and Siberians. The retain heat much more efficently,, radiate less heat, and store fat better for longer periods of time.

Ok, this whole paragraph is full of bad science. Here's how it's broken down according to modern anthropological science:

African people tend to be taller and leaner, accomapnied by shorter hair and larger nostrils. This is evident in bone structure, as well. This larger size allows for greater release of heat through perspiration, as well as for faster land speed due to the faster speed of predators in the natural African environment.

As people began migrating north into colder climates, those individuals with shorter stature and more hair tended to survive. This small stature decreased surface area, and thus decreased the amount of heat released. The hair and smaller nostrils also aided in this capacity. The smaller body takes MORE CALORIES however, due to the need to maintain body temperature homeostasis in colder climates.

Body size and muscle doesnt matter. A large person with big muscles is not necessarily any better equipped for survival than a smaller person with smaller muscles. In fact, during food shortages, it can be a disadvantage, as bigger people need more food.

Again, it's all about how your instincts and nature perceive people. The majority of world leaders fall into the range we call "tall". Is this a coincidence? Or perhaps we subconciously consider those who are tall as powerful, leaders, or otherwise capable people? There are MANY MANY studies on this, so it's not like I'm making it up.

As for the short/tall survival in hot/cold, PLEASE refer to any basic anthropological text. You have the ideas very much backwards, and it may do you some good to look it up. I'm being rude, just pointing out that your idea is counterintuitive to modern science.

MFP

EDIT: Fixed those dang quotes...grr...

[edit on 5/25/2006 by bsl4doc]

[edit on 5/25/2006 by bsl4doc]

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid

The difference between a blood transfusion and food reheated in a microwave? The blood cells are alive, while the cells that compose the food are dead.

At least you're acknowledging that microwave radiation kills even if used in moderate amounts, that's a huge step in the right direction !

if you're eating fruits or vegetables, i bet they are not dead, are they? do you think that such foods are better than processed variants? since all microwave is supposed to do is 'jiggle water molecules' the exact mechanism of killing is unknown (because heating an apple to 100F in water won't harm it but doing the same microwave apparently will), and so are its likely side effects. unfortunately until the industry realises they're conducting a terror campaign by preventing investigation of such vital issues, nothing's going to change, because people don't care or are seemingly powerless.


Let's use a chemical analogy, you were using some kind of preservative and through some twist of fate found out that it's lethal of administered parenterally at very similar doses you ingest daily, wouldn't you exercise a bit of caution from that time on? or demand an investigation of the underlying mechanisms? i certainly would. it's true that some poisons are harmless when ingested but deadly if they get into your blood, but that's not necessarily the case here and if it is, it'll have to be confirmed, independently of course.


PS: what about those 'crowd control' weapons based on microvave emitters? i mean if heating a bag of blood to body temperture turns it toxic, would you approve its use on people ? just curious, although a bit off topic.

[edit on 26-5-2006 by Long Lance]

Originally posted by Long Lance
since all microwave is supposed to do is 'jiggle water molecules' the exact mechanism of killing is unknown (because heating an apple to 100F in water won't harm it but doing the same microwave apparently will), and so are its likely side effects.

There is a great difference between heating an apple in water or in a microwave. If you're heating the apple in water, you're using the heat of the surrounding water. If you're heating the apple in the microwave, you're using radiation.

The water doesn't use radiation, therefor it wouldn't kill off any of the living cells (until it got to a certain temperature, then I'm sure some damage would be done). The microwave does use radiation though. Radiation is proven to kill living cells, as it breaks them down. So I wouldn't say the "mechanism of killing is unknown," when in fact, it's quite well known.

It's like comparing apples heated in water to apples heated in a microwave... I mean, apples and oranges.

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid
Radiation is proven to kill living cells, as it breaks them down.

Wouldn't that create a huge difference between eating a "live" apple and eating an irradiated apple? Non-irradiated fruits and vegetables continue to breathe and accept water and nutrition even after they've been picked. This is why they sell hydroponic lettuce with the roots still attached-- the heads stay fresh significantly longer because they don't die as quickly, prolonging the amount of time before they begin to rot.


An irradiated apple would also take some time to rot, simply because the normal bacteria is not present to break it down once it's "dead"-- but irradiated apples are already "dead" and have already had their living cells broken down somewhat by radiation. Wouldn't one think an irradiated apple, with dead, broken-down cells, would have signifigantly less nutritional value?


Also, hypothetically if there were ANY residual amounts of radiation left in these foods-- even minute amounts-- wouldn't prolonged exposure to this small amount of radiation begin to break down our living cells? (Plus, the FDA is considering allowing pre-packaged foods to be subjected to irradiation techniques, furthering the amount of exposure to the American people-- who tend to prefer these pre-packaged foods)


Plus, how do we really know that they *dont* have residual amounts?? I mean, these people are making a 100% profit on garbage, essentially. They're re-using radioactive elements that would otherwise be simply discarded. I can imagine that, in the eventual discovery of minute amounts of radioactive residue, they would perhaps fudge the results, or pay off the FDA stating that the amounts are so small, they would create no long-lasting effects-- maintaining this 100% profitability.


((BTW: sorry if there are several typos in this post-- I typed it out without my glasses on ))

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid
..
Radiation is proven to kill living cells, as it breaks them down. So I wouldn't say the "mechanism of killing is unknown," when in fact, it's quite well known.

If the mechanism of killing by non-ionizing radiation is known to you you should a) be very careful (cell phone companies will hate you) and b) quickly publish what you have in order to get your well-deserved Nobel Prize.

You see, according to mainstream drivel, there is NO difference AT ALL wether you used microwaves or plain heat (other than the time it takes to reach temp, of course).

The mechanism is NOT trivial, which part of the cell is damaged or is it a global phenomenon f-ex. affecting the nervous system, etc etc. Microwaves are supposedly heating stuff and ONLY that, not more and they're not supposed to be death rays - can you imagine the regulations on them if what you said was completely true?