Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ecsvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary
From: dgary@ecsvax.UUCP (D Gary Grady)
Newsgroups: net.physics
Subject: Re: sterilizing food with radiation
Message-ID: <868@ecsvax.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 6-Dec-85 10:49:34 EST
Article-I.D.: ecsvax.868
Posted: Fri Dec  6 10:49:34 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 8-Dec-85 03:21:08 EST
References: <6202@amdcad.UUCP> <225@redwood.UUCP> <2253@amdahl.UUCP> <814@ecsvax.UUCP> <11159@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Reply-To: dgary@ecsvax.UUCP (D Gary Grady)
Organization: Duke U Comp Ctr
Lines: 57

In article <11159@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> spp@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU (Stephen P Pope) writes:
>     Any plan which forces something on consumers, without them 
>asking for it and without informing them, and without even claiming
>to give them any benefit, qualifies as an idiot scheme in my book.

Agreed, most certainly.  The alleged benefits of preservation by
irradiation have to do with energy savings and consequent cost
savings.  As I said in my last posting, the grocery business is very
competitive and low-margin, and one would assume at least some of the
cost savings would be passed on to consumers.  In addition, the
consumers themselves would have food with long shelf life.  I'd
certainly consider that a benefit.

>     A few years ago, during the height of fruit-fly paranoia
>here in California, food irradiation outfits offered to
>dose the fruit as an alternative to quarantines.  Public
>disapproval killed the idea, but it does demonstrate how
>the irradiators are acting opportunistically, trying to
>take advantage of a situation to gain entry into the industry.

Suppose they honestly believe the irradiation is safe?  Then offering to
save a fruit harvest would be a helpful gesture, not an act of insidious
conspiracy, what?  Seems to me the incident in question reveals nothing
either way about the motivations of these folks you're maligning.

>     And these statements that it's O.K. to irradiate food to
>the point of carcinogenesis, simply because cooking does the 
>same thing, don't convince me of much.

Again, grossly distorting the views of those you disagree with is poor
tactics; it makes you look unreasonable.  The question of the safety of
food preservation by irradiation remains open, though from what I've
seen the scientific consenus is that it's probably safe for most foods.
I'd certainly advocate careful testing before unleashing it.

For what it's worth, carcinogens are all over the place, even in
"organically" grown fruits and vegetables.  That doesn't mean we should
just give up and start guzzling red dye #2, smoking clove cigarets (like
a certain programmer of my acquaintance), and scarfing up on lard-fried
plutonium.  It does mean we should recognize that the issues here aren't
black and white.

>     I apologize for a little name calling.  After all, it's us
>fools who continue to eat who are the real idiots.

I always thought we were piggies.

Oink, oink.
>
>steve pope


-- 
D Gary Grady
Duke U Comp Center, Durham, NC  27706
(919) 684-3695
USENET:  {seismo,decvax,ihnp4,akgua,etc.}!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary