Have to take issue with the slightly alarmist tone re:irradiated food.
Finchy wrote:irradiation of food is far from neutral or harmless
This would seem to imply that it is harmful. Concrete evidence of actual harm, as opposed to a plausible mechanism for causing harm, is lacking. That is not to say that it is absolutely not harmful, just to say that the effects are sufficiently slight to have been difficult to demonstrate.
Finchy wrote:Here are a few scientific views...
It is worth noting here that these views are in a minority.
One could equally rustle up some minority views on GM crops, or climate change, or low-salt diets, or any other controversial topic in science and by presenting them in series, create the appearance of consensus.
There are numerous reviews which have failed to find evidence of harm, conducted by independents as well as government bodies.
Finchy wrote:George L Tritsch, Ph D
:
(the PhD was awarded in 1954 for biochemistry)
Finchy wrote:abundant and convincing evidence in the refereed scientific literature that the condensation products of the free radicals formed during irradiation produce statistically significant increases in carcinogenesis, mutagenesis and cardiovascular disease in animals and man
A quick search of Medline showed no such evidence. Instead, as is usually the case, there is evidence implicating free radicals in those disease processes, and evidence that irradiation causes production of free radicals. This is different to proving that irradiated food causes cancer. Remember, we used to think that aluminium cooking pans caused Alzheimer's, based on similar tenuous chains of logic. Further, we continue to use our mobile phones despite better evidence than exists for food irradiation that they can cause cancer.
Finchy wrote:A large number of new molecules is formed
Finchy wrote:… Theory cannot predict the nature or number or quantity of the new compounds….
Very alarming stuff, until we consider that the same statements could be equally applied to cooking foods, or smoking/pickling/preserving them. I understand that Woolies ("The Fresh Food People") store apples for up to 15 months in anoxic coolrooms. What does that do to the compounds in the apples?
Finchy wrote:... the results of feeding five malnourished Indian children wheat irradiated with 75,000 rads. … children showed gross chromosomal polyploidy [cell abnormalities] four weeks after initiation of the feeding program. Chromosome number returned to normal twenty six weeks after the feeding was stopped. This is unequivocal evidence of a potent mutagen in irradiated wheat."
Leaving aside the deeply disturbing ethical questions raised by this bizarre report, it raises more questions than it answers. "Gross chromosomal polyploidy" is not an easily reversible condition. It would be helpful to know what cells were polyploid, to what extent, and frankly, the result sounds implausible. If a reference were provided, I would love to check it out. As it stands, it is emotive, unverifiable and implausible.
Finchy wrote:Richard Piccioni, Ph D, Senior Staff Scientist
This fellow seems more circumspect.
Finchy wrote:The large amount of energy contained in ionising radiation provides the potential for exceedingly complex chemical transformation of food components including the production of mutagenic or carcinogenic substances…"
No doubt, but there is a long way between 'the potential for' and 'actual evidence of'.
And finally, the QFS observation on fresh versus imported Niger seed: is it not possible that birds prefer fresh seed? The imported seed was irradiated; perhaps it was treated with other agents as well.
Finchy wrote:So irradiating baby food is scientifically indefensible madness
Au contraire, my dear, it has been vigorously scientifically defended. It has also been vigorously scientifically assaulted. To my reading, the jury is still out.
Finchy wrote:Fingers crossed for good Australian crops and sound governmental support for our agricultural industries!
Hear, hear to that.
No offense Finchy, and this is not directed at you or anyone else.
I just think that we are very bad at assessing risk, and worry about things like cancer risk from passive smoking while we lead toxic lifestyles and drive cars to work very fast every day.
It is worth remembering that we are talking about birdseed here.
*falls gracelessly from soapbox*