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