Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 (Tek) 9/26/83; site azure.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!azure!eugenez From: eugenez@azure.UUCP (Eugene Zinter) Newsgroups: net.med,net.veg Subject: IRRADIATED FOOD Message-ID: <2578@azure.UUCP> Date: Mon, 27-Feb-84 22:23:10 EST Article-I.D.: azure.2578 Posted: Mon Feb 27 22:23:10 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 29-Feb-84 07:49:43 EST Organization: Tektronix, Beaverton OR Lines: 114 *********************** * * * IRRADIATED FOOD * * * *********************** I think that most people would agree that the problem with Irradiated food is not that is becomes RADIOACTIVE. Rather, the problem is: What happens to the food when it is bombarded with Gamma Rays from Cobalt-60? What changes occur in the vitamins, enzymes, minerals, amino acids, etc? After all, why did the organisms within the food die? Some changes had to occur---why can't the same thing happen to the very food we are talking about? And we haven't even discussed the radiolytic by-products. These are things few people (myself included) know specifically about. I do know that the main problem with radiation exposure in human beings is that large amounts of Singlet Oxygen are produced in the body. This is a powerful free radical and apparently does the major damage. According to theory, if you could produce enough, say Super-Oxide Dismutase (SOD, a powerful free-radical deactivator) within your body, you could withstand large amounts of radioactive exposure. That is also why some people ingest a lot of carrots (or a Beta-Carotene Supplement) daily for a few weeks before summer and continuing it throughout summer weather. The idea is to build up enough beta-Carotene in your skin so when you sun, you won't age your skin from the Singlet Oxygen produced from long exposure to the sun. Beta-Carotene is a free-radical scavenger and so deactivates Singlet Oxygen. As a result, it's supposed to cut down sunburn problems. ********************************************************************** ********************************************************************** There is a statement I do NOT agree with: [pick your favorite subject] has/have been in use for over 20 years and therefore this proves that it/they is/are perfectly safe. Let's apply this to the newly discovered aluminum problem. After all, wide use of aluminum in our food has been around for 50 years, OR MORE. Here's the sentence: [Aluminum-based food additives] have been in use for over 20 years and therefore this proves that they are perfectly safe. Notice how easy it is to fill in some subject, and to even choose some proper grammar. Most convenient. That should prove beyond ANY DOUBT that aluminum is PERFECTLY safe to ingest. Awwwww. Too bad someone playing with dialysis units and dialysis patients dying mysteriously stumbled upon some problems with aluminum within the last year or so. I mean, everyone knew that the body eliminates all aluminum safely---oops, how embarrassing---it's just been !recently! discovered that the body may retain around 20% of it, storing a lot of it in the brain. Could the experts be wrong after all these years? I mean, they are much smarter than "common" me. I mean, what do I know---I just go by common sense. What's all the excitement about Alzheimer's disease? Gee, another "safe" substance blown to hell. Of course this is all conjecture until it is thoroughly proven (like Cigarette Smoking causing lung cancer). You can have a lot of fun modifying the sentence: [ X-Rays ] have been in use for over 20 years and therefore this proves that they are perfectly safe. [ Automobiles ] have been in use for over 20 years and therefore this proves that they are perfectly safe. [ Coal Tar Derivatives ] have been in use for over 20 years and therefore this proves that they are perfectly safe. ********************************************************************** ********************************************************************** I realize this is being a bit facetious. And Irradiated food may have some very useful applications. But for such an advanced civilization, it shouldn't be that terrible of a problem to figure out how to deliver fresh foods. Or is it of the same difficulty as "curing" the common cold? Hmmmmmm. And it may indeed, be safer to ingest irradiated food, rather than barbecued/smoked meat (up to 600 cigarettes worth of Benzopyrine per large barbecued steak!) or safer than excessive use of salt, spices, etc. But I don't eat such things anyway, so the argument basically doesn't apply to me. I say, "Let those who want to ingest Irradiated food to do so." And let those of us who DON'T want to use it to have such FREEDOM. However, those of us who care will watch what happens, whether any bad results come from new research or observation of populations who eat Irradiated food and we will give warnings where needed. Maybe we'll be lucky this time and nothing bad will come of it. Personally, I choose NOT to be a guinea pig anymore. I have no real reason to eat Irradiated foods when I can find them fresh and/or grow them myself. I would be interested in knowing more about radiolytic by-products due to Irradiation of food by Cobalt-60 or whatever. Does anyone have any information on this? ECZ