Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!watarts!cdanderson From: cdanderson@watarts.UUCP Newsgroups: net.med Subject: Re: irradiated food - what exactly are people worrying about? Message-ID: <2117@watarts.UUCP> Date: Sun, 26-Feb-84 01:28:58 EST Article-I.D.: watarts.2117 Posted: Sun Feb 26 01:28:58 1984 Date-Received: Mon, 27-Feb-84 08:26:03 EST References: <1186@mhuxv.UUCP> pegasus.984 Lines: 28 Regarding the comment of Avi E. Gross, i.e. "what is everyone worried about when you consider the level of danger from smoking, salting, processed food, etc.", two points must be made. These are: 1) Some of us are actually cutting out or limiting the amount of these products in our lives and do not welcome others; and 2) The argument that if one is exposed to X amount of danger from source A and puts up with it one should put up with source B if its' danger level is less than or equal to X is a fallacious and harmful one. In the case where two sources of danger exist, each with danger level X, the result is not a cancellation of the two or even "just" X, but X times X, i.e. a far greater health hazard. It should be criminal for producers to try to neglect or argue against synergistic effects in the way they have to date. So far, one of the only substances consumed in a mass fashion where the users are "now" warned about such effects is the Pill, and even then not all are warned or to the extent warranted. There is now a case before Ontario courts where a women was advised to go on the Pill and not warned about negative side effects or symptoms of such. Shortly after doing so (in 1968 or '72, I think it is the latter though) she suffered a stroke (preceeded by headaches) which left her partially paralyzed. Not happy with even X, Cameron Anderson watmath!watarts!cdanderson