FDA: OK to zap spinach, lettuce with radiation, page 3
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 6 times


reply posted on 23-8-2008 @ 12:07 PM by Lasheic
reply to post by C0bzz




Wouldn't the radiation pass through it only killing the nasties but NOT making it radioactive?


Yes.


reply posted on 23-8-2008 @ 12:31 PM by Zepherian
reply to post by Lasheic


Life expectancy in the US is coming down for the first time in over 50 years. I suspect this is a direct result of the food crisis, ie and industrialized diet, and the healtcare crisis, with a greedy system and a cancer epidemic (vaccines?). Likewise in western europe somewhere down the line. The only counteracting factor is a better first response medical grid and more effective surgeory, which is keeping people alive longer but at lower functioning capacity. Again, in the US this isn't going against the trend, which is a start in the decrease of the life expectancy.

Sources for the above are still sketchy, as no government will admit to this unless forced, but I have heard it from several interviews and read it on several sites. I expect it to become a higher profile meme sometime soon. Note that terrorism, war casualities and even accident victims are pratically negligible in the totals, which should give people a clue as to what their real priorities should be. Don't ask me for sources, research it for yourself

Low calory diets are indeed praised often, but they have to undertaken with fresh healthy foods for any positive effect. Try LC with irradiated vegetables and I would bet you would be dead within 5 years. Besides, I don't even like the term, they aren't LC diets, they are Right Calory diets that also cover all the basics in antioxidants, organic sugars, acids, etc. High calory industrial diets give you the carbs, and little else, so you have energy to move an ever degrading body, whils a good diet gives you just enough energy but a good biological repair ability and a strong immune system.


reply posted on 23-8-2008 @ 12:43 PM by loam
reply to post by Lasheic


Not exactly the same thing as food irradiation, now is it?

Just want to point that out so no one gets confused by your post.


reply posted on 23-8-2008 @ 01:09 PM by Lasheic
reply to post by Zepherian




Sources for the above are still sketchy, as no government will admit to this unless forced, but I have heard it from several interviews and read it on several sites.


Try to find a source, even if sketchy. I would like to know how long this trend has been going on, because a more suspect cause for a decline in the average life expectancy would be the declining economy. In countries with Socialized Healthcare, this isn't as much of a problem - however in the US where we have to deal with insurance companies, the fall of our economy has lead to an increase in uninsured families and a reduction in coverage for those who are insured. A population who finds the cost of proper medical treatment and maintenance will lower the life expectancy rate.

2000 ~ 2004 study on rising rate of the uninsured

Artical, same source, from 06 ~ Uninsured at an all time high.

A decrease in life expectancy can also come from increased immigration from second and third world countries, which the US and Europe has been facing increasing numbers of in the last decade. However, this trend will even out and shouldn't put much of a dent in the average as second generation immigrants who are raised in a healthier environment are not as susceptible to premature death due to adverse living conditions.

Obesity is a major problem... an epidemic really... but as said, it's got more to do with convince, cost effectiveness, lack of exercise, and perhaps other biological functions. Such as viruses.



The only counteracting factor is a better first response medical grid and more effective surgeory, which is keeping people alive longer but at lower functioning capacity.


Any data to back this up? I don't doubt that Europe has a better healthcare system - however, what data is there to suggest that Europeans have gotten more lethargic over the years and that there is a definite correlation between this and malnutrition?



Try LC with irradiated vegetables and I would bet you would be dead within 5 years.


Irradiation doesn't strip out all of the nutrients. In fact, it strips out far less than conventional cooking methods - including steaming, which is popular for CR diets. The effect is largely negligable.

Idaho State University - Food Irradiation



reply posted on 23-8-2008 @ 01:19 PM by Lasheic
reply to post by loam


You're right. Background radiation constantly irradiates YOU. The irradiation of your food will not. You'll get more radiation from your food via the naturally occurring radioactive materials your food absorbs from the soil than you will from a lifetime of eating irradiated food.

This goes back to an earlier post by someone who used a quote to compare food irradiation to terrorists setting off a dirty bomb (lol). The two are not even remotely similar because the process of irradiation does not make the food radioactive. Dirty bombs don't make things radioactive either. They simply spread radioactive materials which are scattered through the environment and continue to emit radiation. They would only be similar if the process of irradiating our food involved placing the radioactive material ON THE FOOD itself - thereby leaving residue from the material on the produce which would continue to emit radiation.

Besides, the entire point of that post was to refute the idea of "Gods green non-irradiated Earth" - when as a point of fact, the Earth is constantly irradiated by natural - not man made - sources.

It's a bit of irony really, that all these people who are freaked out by irradiated food and sticking to "natural organic" foods are going to get the exact same amount of radiation from their food (if not more) than the people eating irradiated food!

[edit on 23-8-2008 by Lasheic]


reply posted on 23-8-2008 @ 01:28 PM by Lasheic
reply to post by Tranceopticalinclined


So let me get this straight. You make a false statement (knowingly or unknowingly). I correct you. You call me ignorant (in a round about way), and then you proceed to make a statement like this:



what ever happened to washing the produce? Oh yeah costs too much to do it right so why not use a cheaper less understood method.


Brilliant. Just brilliant.

Irradiation only affects pathogens. Water is not an effective way to remove pathogens, especially those INSIDE the food.


reply posted on 23-8-2008 @ 01:35 PM by Zepherian
reply to post by Lasheic


The lowering of the life expectancy in the US is a fairly recent trend, probably XIst century only.

Are you kidding about european lethargy? Just check the statistics for new cars sold... I have a car, I walk less, although I still try and be active. Plus you can see it at the beach, loads of pre obesity bodies waddling all over the place, especially kids. 18 years ago it was rare to see a fat kid at the beach here, now it's commonplace. One huge factor is electronic entertainment.

Irradiated foods takes a lot, plus you're still likely going to cook them, taking even more.

Here's a clue: Sterilization is death, you're killing the biological components of whatever your sterilizing. The problem with this logic is that the higiene which is achieved is toxic to us, because we are of the same biological matrix as the things we are steralizing. This is the conceptual failure of modern higiene. We need organic higiene practices, not kisses of death. It's simple if you think of it in this broad term. And remember that what might seem negligible, such as irradiation, will likely have cumulative effects over time, which may end up deadly.

I also suspect the proponents of this insanity know this, and willingly conceal it.

[edit on 23-8-2008 by Zepherian]


reply posted on 23-8-2008 @ 01:37 PM by loam
reply to post by Lasheic


Where did you get the notion that I was concerned about being exposed to additional radiation via this process????



The PRECISE point I made was that killing everything, including beneficial biota, and potentially damaging the natural proteins or even DNA of the consumable organic matter in question is just plain dumb, imo.

The true risk/benefit profile of this practice is really unknown. So asserting with such conviction the practice is safe is nothing short of a lie.

The point you're railing against is a complete red-herring issue. Is that an intentional effort on your part to be obtuse?


[edit on 23-8-2008 by loam]


reply posted on 23-8-2008 @ 01:52 PM by loam
reply to post by Tranceopticalinclined


This is usually the consequence of cross-contamination from a livestock source.

Water is usually the conveying culprit.

reply to post by St Udio


I do get your point.

You should also see the degree to which human waste and contaminated water are used in foreign agricultural practice.

[edit on 23-8-2008 by loam]


reply posted on 23-8-2008 @ 01:59 PM by Lasheic
reply to post by loam


I think there's a misconception here. I thought you were referring to my reply to Tranceopticalinclined, as clicking the "Reply to Lasheic" link simply brought me to the top of the page and wouldn't single out the exact post you were referring to. I must have made the faulty assumption that you were replying to the post directly above yours. So when I framed my response, it was likely with an entirely different post in mind.

No red herring, and sorry about that.

But... I will say that irradiation does not kill everything. It generally only brings the pathogen level down to an acceptable level where they will not pose a health risk to even those with low constitutions - such as young children and the elderly. Care and preventative measures must be taken even after irradiation to keep the food preserved so as to prevent the remaining pathogens from spreading again.

As for risk/benefit analysis - well, we could always use more for everything. However irradiation of select food products has been tested for several decades now and is used in general practice (especially in France and Belgium IIRC) with no serious or discernible side effects. So while it hasn't been proven safe in all totality - it's been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. in both the lab and in practice.


reply posted on 23-8-2008 @ 02:09 PM by loam
Originally posted by Lasheic
No red herring, and sorry about that.


Fair enough.

Originally posted by Lasheic
But... I will say that irradiation does not kill everything.


That would depend on the actual dose.

Not the best source, but this will do:



Low Dose Applications (up to 1 kGy)

* Sprout inhibition in bulbs and tubers 0.03-0.15 kGy
* Delay in fruit ripening 0.25-0.75 kGy
* Insect disinfestation including, quarantine treatment and elimination of food borne parasites 0.07-1.00 kGy

Medium Dose Applications (1 kGy to 10 kGy)

* Reduction of spoilage microbes to prolong shelf-life of meat, poultry and seafoods under refrigeration 1.50-3.00 kGy
* Reduction of pathogenic microbes in fresh and frozen meat, poultry and seafoods 3.00-7.00 kGy
* Reducing number of microorganisms in spices to improve hygenic quality 10.00 kGy

High Dose Applications (above 10 kGy)

* Sterilisation of packaged meat, poultry and their products which are shelf stable without refrigeration. 25.00-70.00 kGy
* Sterilisation of Hospital diets 25.00-70.00 kGy
* Product improvement as increased juice yield or improved re-hydration

It is important to note that these doses are above those currently permitted for these food items by the FDA and other regulators around the world. The Codex Alimentarius Standard on Irradiated Food does not specify any upper dose limit. NASA is authorized to sterilize frozen meat for astronauts at doses of 44 kGy as a notable exception.

Source.



Moreover, none of that accounts for unauthorized doses, accidents, or other unintended doses.

Originally posted by Lasheic
As for risk/benefit analysis ... irradiation of select food products has been tested for several decades now...So while it hasn't been proven safe in all totality - it's been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. in both the lab and in practice.


I think that is still a matter of opinion. For example, 'beyond a reasonable doubt' would certainly not be the threshold I would arrive at after only a couple of decades of VERY limited study or use.


[edit on 23-8-2008 by loam]
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>    ^^TOP^^