Irradiated Spinach to Start Tomorrow... Why you Should NOT eat it...

[Guest guest]

Look for this Symbol (in any color) - If it is a fresh product Don't Buy It. The

irradiation industry, and governments world wide, have touted the

effective irradiation of food products as a means to kill various and

harmful bacteria and viruses. Unfortunately what they are not telling

you is that in study after study there have been a plethora of negative

side effects of FRESHLY irradiated products in test animals. Signs

exhibited ranged from weakened immune systems, to weight loss, to other

aberations in the test subject.What is interesting to note is

that food stored for 6 weeks after irradiation (such as grain products

and spices) did not exhibit these effects in nearly so strongly a

manner.. Finally those of you who take the time to read the

whole posting will quickly realize the con-job about to be played on

the unsuspecting public. As you will read, the FDA has already

basically sided with Big Business at the cost of your health. That

means ONLY YOU WILL INFORM YOUR NEIGHBOUR. The FDA, the Media, and

other Bodies will do NOTHING to tell you the truth about the dangerous

side effects of freshly irradiated food.. It is up to you to copy this

post and share with as many people as possible. Then when enough people

know the difference we can exert serious pressure to keep our food

unirradiated and simply get the food industry to simply use GOOD

HYGIENE PRACTISES.http://www.truehealth.org/nukedfood.htmlCatch the FDA Lying to Your Face..http://tinyurl.com/59zzmeDr.

Laura Tarantino, director of the Office of Food Additive Safety at the

F.D.A., said the agency had found no serious nutritional or safety

changes associated with irradiation of spinach or lettuce."These

irradiated foods are not less safe than others," Dr. Tarantino said,

"and the doses are effective in reducing the level of disease-causing

micro-organisms." Catch the FDA and their plans for Super-Weak Irradiation Labelling-

They are considering lowering the labelling standard with terms like

'electronically pasteurized' and 'cold pasteurized' - SO WATCH FOR IT."Acceptance

of irradiated food would get a boost if it didn't have to be labeled as

such, Doyle said. There's a food industry proposal before the FDA to do

just that, allowing processors to use the broad term "pasteurized" for

several processes that kill pathogens, including irradiation." http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi...0,7539234.storyhttp://ga3.org/cfs/alert-description.html?alert_id=10233644Original Article: George L. Tritsch, PhD Cancer Research Scientist, Roswell Park Memorial Institute, New York State Department of Health.

I am speaking as a private citizen, and my opinions are my own, based

on thirty-three years of experience since my doctorate at Cornell

Medical College, Rockefeller University and, since 1959, as a cancer

research scientist and biochemist at Roswell. I am opposed to

consuming irradiated food because of the 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. I will not address the

reported destruction of vitamins and other nutrients (what? - more

nutrient deficiencies?; my comment) by irradiation because suitable

supplementation of the diet can prevent the development of such

potential deficiencies. However, I cannot protect myself from the

carcinogenic and other harmful insults to the body placed into the food

supples and I can see no tangible benefit to be traded for the possible

increased incidence of malignant disease one to three decades in the

future. Irradiation works by splitting chemical bonds in

molecules with high energy beams to form ions and free radicals. When

sufficient critical bonds are split in organisms contaminating a food,

the organism is killed. Comparable bonds are split in the food. Ions

are stable; free radicals contain an unpaired electron and are

inherently unstable and therefore reactive. How long free radicals

remain in food treated with a given dose of radiation or the reaction

products formed in a given food cannot be calculated but must be tested

experimentally for each food. Different doses of radiation will produce

different amounts and kinds of products. The kinds of bonds

split in a given molecule are governed by statistical considerations.

Thus, while most molecules of a given fatty acid, for example, may be

split in a certain manner, other molecules of the same fatty acid will

be split differently. A free radical can either combine with another

free radical to form a stable compound, or it can initiate a [chemical]

chain reaction by reacting with a stable molecule to form another free

radical, et cetera, until the chain is terminated by the reaction of

two free radicals to form a stable compound. These reactions continue

long after the irradiation procedure. I am bringing this up to

give you a rationale for the vast number of new molecules that can be

formed from irradiation of a single molecular species, to say nothing

of a complicated mixture such as food. Furthermore, the final number

and types of new molecules formed will depend on the other molecules

present in the sample. Thus, free radicals originating from fats could

form new compounds with proteins, nucleic acids [DNA], and so forth.[ found at: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/8979/page26.html ]. Abstracts: [from the public archives of the National Library of Medicine] 1) Micronucleus test in mice fed on an irradiated diet. Jpn J Vet Res 1989 Apr;37(2):41-7 Endoh D, Hashimoto N, Sato F, Kuwabara M.

A mutagenicity study was carried out in mice fed on a gamma-irradiated

diet. As an indicator of mutagenic activity, we observed an incidence

of micronuclei in erythrocytes. The average body weight of the mice fed

on the diet irradiated to dose range of 400-1,000 kGy decreased, and

the mice fed on the 800-1,000 kGy-irradiated diet died during the

period from 8 to 14 days after the start of feeding. On the other hand,

when the mutagenic activity of the irradiated diet was tested by

observing occurrence of micronucleus in erythrocytes, no significant

increase was recognized. These results indicated that the irradiated

diet had no mutagenic activity, even though it possessed a toxic effect

on the growth of mice. PMID: 2779058 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 2) Genetic effects of feeding irradiated wheat to mice. Can J Genet Cytol 1976 Jun;18(2):231-8 Vijayalaxmi.The

effects of feeding irradiated wheat in mice on bone marrow and testis

chromosomes, germ cell numbers and dominant lethal mutations were

investigated. Feeding of freshly irradiated wheat resulted in

significantly increased incidence of polyploid cells in bone marrow,

aneuploid cells in testis, reduction in number of spermatogonia of

types A, B and resting primary spermatocytes as well as a higher

mutagenic index. Such a response was not observed when mice were fed

stored irradiated wheat. Also there was no difference between the mice

fed un-irradiated wheat and stored irradiated wheat. PMID: 990994

[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 3) Chromosome studies on bone marrow cells of Chinese hamsters fed a radiosterilized diet. Toxicology 1977 Oct;8(2):213-22 Renner HW.Metaphase

preparations of chromosomes from bone marrow cells of Chinese hamsters

were examined for mutagenic effects following the feeding of a

radiosterilized diet. No increase in the incidence of structural

chromosomal aberrations was observed. As far as numerical aberrrations

were concerned, the proportion of cells with polyploidy increased to

between 4 to 5 times the control level, irrespective of the moisture

content of the diet. This polyploidy effect occurred very early, being

detectable within 24 h, if the diet fed had been irradiated with an

absorbed dose of 4.5 - 10(6) rad. The incidence of polyploidy remained

below 0.5%, however, nor did it rise with higher radiation doses. When

the feeding of the irradiated diet was stopped, the proportion of

polyploid cells returned to the control level within a maximum of 6

weeks. If the diet was stored (initially) for 6 weeks following

irradiation before being fed to the animals no increase in the number

of polyploid cells was noted. These results are not interpreted as a

mutagenic effect of the irradiated diet. PMID: 929628 [PubMed - indexed

for MEDLINE] 4) Irradiated laboratory animal diets: dominant lethal studies in the mouse. Mutat Res 1981 Feb;80(2):333-45 Anderson D, Clapp MJ, Hodge MC, Weight TM.

In 4 separate dominant lethal experiments groups of mice of either

Charles River CD1 or Alderley Park strains were fed laboratory diets

(Oakes, 41B, PRD, BP nutrition rat and mouse maintenance diet No. 1).

The diets were either untreated (negative control diets) or irradiated

at 1, 2.5 and 5 megarad and were freshly irradiated, or stored. The

animals were fed their test diets for a period of 3 weeks prior to

mating. Groups of mice given a single intraperitoneal injection of 200

mg cyclophosphamide per kg body weight served as the positive controls.

Freshly irradiated PRD diet fed to male mice of both strains caused an

increase in early deaths in females mated to the males in week 7 and to

a lesser extent in week 4. The increase due to irradiation was small by

comparison with that produced by the positive control compound. The

responses for the other irradiated diets showed no significant

increases in early deaths although some values for Oakes diet were

high. The effect of storage was examined with PRD and BPN diet on one

occasion and produced conflicting results. Thus there was some evidence

that irradiated PRD diet has weak mutagenic activity in the meiotic

and/or pre-meiotic phase of the spermatogenic cycle which appeared to

be lessened on storage; the inclusion of such a diet in toxicological

studies would therefore need to be carefully considered. PMID: 7207489

[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 5) The effect of ionizing irradiation on sensory changes in feed in relation to their utilization by dogs Vet Med (Praha) 1985 Dec;30(12):739-48, [Article in Czech] Smid K, Dvorak J, Hrusovsky J.

To evaluate the effect of ionizing radiation on sensory changes of

feeds in relation to their utilization by dogs, four groups of

experimental animals were formed. Two groups were fed a ration where

the main component (meat feed mixture VETACAN and loose feed mixture

VETAVIT) was irradiated by radioisotope Co 60 at the dose of 25 kGy/kg

for the period of 90 days. In the remaining two groups a non-irradiated

ration was used for the same period. For both diets, control groups of

dogs were formed and the feed ration was biologically fortified by a

vitamin-mineral supplement to the physiological standard. It followed

from the observations that the effect of radiation caused a significant

qualitative decrease in the level of energy nutrients, particularly in

the protein and lipid sphere. It is assumed that the extent of damage

of lipid fraction is also accompanied by deficient vitamin activity and

further by significant changes of taste and aromatic properties felt by

animals. Irradiation of the feed ration caused a significant 20 to 25%

decrease of food intake with a subsequent decrease of live weight and

deterioration of physical condition. Irradiated diets without

biological fortification caused significant losses of weight from the

initial value mean = 39.5 kg to mean = 35.33 kg, in comparison with the

non-irradiated rations through which the live weight was stabilized,

and at biological fortification positively influenced. Irradiation of

the feed ration during the period of study had not caused a response of

the organism displayed in changes of physiological values of body

temperature and heart and respiration rates in experimental animals.

Radiosterilization of feeds had not caused any significant decrease of

training ability and performance of dogs. PMID: 3937317 [PubMed -

indexed for MEDLINE] 6) Immune response in rats given irradiated wheat. Br J Nutr 1978 Nov;40(3):535-41 Vijayalaxmi.

1. Rats given diets containing freshly-irradiated wheat showed

significantly lower mean antibody titres to four different antigens,

decreased numbers of antibody-forming cells in the spleen and

rosette-forming lymphocytes as compared to rats given either

unirradiated wheat or irradiated wheat stored for a period of 12 weeks.

2. The immune response in rats given 90 g protein/kg diet was

essentially similar to that seen in animals given 180 g protein/kg

diet. PMID: 568934 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

[Guest guest]

this is why i grow my own food.

 

 

zebra77a <zebra77a Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2008 9:48:15 PM Irradiated Spinach to Start Tomorrow... Why you Should NOT eat it...

Look for this Symbol (in any color) - If it is a fresh product Don't Buy It. The irradiation industry, and governments world wide, have touted the effective irradiation of food products as a means to kill various and harmful bacteria and viruses. Unfortunately what they are not telling you is that in study after study there have been a plethora of negative side effects of FRESHLY irradiated products in test animals. Signs exhibited ranged from weakened immune systems, to weight loss, to other aberations in the test subject.What is interesting to note is that food stored for 6 weeks after irradiation (such as grain products and spices) did not exhibit these effects in nearly so strongly a manner..Finally those of you who take the time to read the whole posting will quickly realize the con-job about to be played on the unsuspecting public. As you will read, the FDA has already

basically sided with Big Business at the cost of your health. That means ONLY YOU WILL INFORM YOUR NEIGHBOUR. The FDA, the Media, and other Bodies will do NOTHING to tell you the truth about the dangerous side effects of freshly irradiated food.. It is up to you to copy this post and share with as many people as possible. Then when enough people know the difference we can exert serious pressure to keep our food unirradiated and simply get the food industry to simply use GOOD HYGIENE PRACTISES.http://www.truehealth.org/nukedfood.htmlCatch the FDA Lying to Your Face..http://tinyurl.com/59zzmeDr. Laura Tarantino, director of the Office of Food Additive Safety at the F.D.A., said the agency had found no serious nutritional or safety changes associated with irradiation of spinach or

lettuce."These irradiated foods are not less safe than others," Dr. Tarantino said, "and the doses are effective in reducing the level of disease-causing micro-organisms." Catch the FDA and their plans for Super-Weak Irradiation Labelling- They are considering lowering the labelling standard with terms like 'electronically pasteurized' and 'cold pasteurized' - SO WATCH FOR IT."Acceptance of irradiated food would get a boost if it didn't have to be labeled as such, Doyle said. There's a food industry proposal before the FDA to do just that, allowing processors to use the broad term "pasteurized" for several processes that kill pathogens, including irradiation."http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi...0,7539234.storyhttp://ga3.org/cfs/alert-description.html?alert_id=10233644Original Article:George L. Tritsch, PhDCancer Research Scientist, Roswell Park Memorial Institute, New York State Department of Health.I am speaking as a private citizen, and my opinions are my own, based on thirty-three years of experience since my doctorate at Cornell Medical College, Rockefeller University and, since 1959, as a cancer research scientist and biochemist at Roswell.I am opposed to consuming irradiated food because of the 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. I

will not address the reported destruction of vitamins and other nutrients (what? - more nutrient deficiencies?; my comment) by irradiation because suitable supplementation of the diet can prevent the development of such potential deficiencies. However, I cannot protect myself from the carcinogenic and other harmful insults to the body placed into the food supples and I can see no tangible benefit to be traded for the possible increased incidence of malignant disease one to three decades in the future.Irradiation works by splitting chemical bonds in molecules with high energy beams to form ions and free radicals. When sufficient critical bonds are split in organisms contaminating a food, the organism is killed. Comparable bonds are split in the food. Ions are stable; free radicals contain an unpaired electron and are inherently unstable and therefore reactive. How long free radicals remain in food treated with a given dose of radiation or the

reaction products formed in a given food cannot be calculated but must be tested experimentally for each food. Different doses of radiation will produce different amounts and kinds of products.The kinds of bonds split in a given molecule are governed by statistical considerations. Thus, while most molecules of a given fatty acid, for example, may be split in a certain manner, other molecules of the same fatty acid will be split differently. A free radical can either combine with another free radical to form a stable compound, or it can initiate a [chemical] chain reaction by reacting with a stable molecule to form another free radical, et cetera, until the chain is terminated by the reaction of two free radicals to form a stable compound. These reactions continue long after the irradiation procedure.I am bringing this up to give you a rationale for the vast number of new molecules that can be formed from irradiation of a single molecular

species, to say nothing of a complicated mixture such as food. Furthermore, the final number and types of new molecules formed will depend on the other molecules present in the sample. Thus, free radicals originating from fats could form new compounds with proteins, nucleic acids [DNA], and so forth.[ found at: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/8979/page26.html ].Abstracts: [from the public archives of the National Library of Medicine]1) Micronucleus test in mice fed on an irradiated diet.Jpn J Vet Res 1989 Apr;37(2):41-7Endoh D, Hashimoto N, Sato F, Kuwabara M.A mutagenicity study was carried out in

mice fed on a gamma-irradiated diet. As an indicator of mutagenic activity, we observed an incidence of micronuclei in erythrocytes. The average body weight of the mice fed on the diet irradiated to dose range of 400-1,000 kGy decreased, and the mice fed on the 800-1,000 kGy-irradiated diet died during the period from 8 to 14 days after the start of feeding. On the other hand, when the mutagenic activity of the irradiated diet was tested by observing occurrence of micronucleus in erythrocytes, no significant increase was recognized. These results indicated that the irradiated diet had no mutagenic activity, even though it possessed a toxic effect on the growth of mice. PMID: 2779058 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 2) Genetic effects of feeding irradiated wheat to mice.Can J Genet Cytol 1976 Jun;18(2):231-8Vijayalaxmi.The effects of feeding irradiated wheat in mice on bone marrow and testis chromosomes, germ cell numbers and

dominant lethal mutations were investigated. Feeding of freshly irradiated wheat resulted in significantly increased incidence of polyploid cells in bone marrow, aneuploid cells in testis, reduction in number of spermatogonia of types A, B and resting primary spermatocytes as well as a higher mutagenic index. Such a response was not observed when mice were fed stored irradiated wheat. Also there was no difference between the mice fed un-irradiated wheat and stored irradiated wheat. PMID: 990994 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 3) Chromosome studies on bone marrow cells of Chinese hamsters fed a radiosterilized diet.Toxicology 1977 Oct;8(2):213-22Renner HW.Metaphase preparations of chromosomes from bone marrow cells of Chinese hamsters were examined for mutagenic effects following the feeding of a radiosterilized diet. No increase in the incidence of structural chromosomal aberrations was observed. As far as numerical

aberrrations were concerned, the proportion of cells with polyploidy increased to between 4 to 5 times the control level, irrespective of the moisture content of the diet. This polyploidy effect occurred very early, being detectable within 24 h, if the diet fed had been irradiated with an absorbed dose of 4.5 - 10(6) rad. The incidence of polyploidy remained below 0.5%, however, nor did it rise with higher radiation doses. When the feeding of the irradiated diet was stopped, the proportion of polyploid cells returned to the control level within a maximum of 6 weeks. If the diet was stored (initially) for 6 weeks following irradiation before being fed to the animals no increase in the number of polyploid cells was noted. These results are not interpreted as a mutagenic effect of the irradiated diet. PMID: 929628 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]4) Irradiated laboratory animal diets: dominant lethal studies in the mouse.Mutat Res 1981

Feb;80(2):333-45Anderson D, Clapp MJ, Hodge MC, Weight TM.In 4 separate dominant lethal experiments groups of mice of either Charles River CD1 or Alderley Park strains were fed laboratory diets (Oakes, 41B, PRD, BP nutrition rat and mouse maintenance diet No. 1). The diets were either untreated (negative control diets) or irradiated at 1, 2.5 and 5 megarad and were freshly irradiated, or stored. The animals were fed their test diets for a period of 3 weeks prior to mating. Groups of mice given a single intraperitoneal injection of 200 mg cyclophosphamide per kg body weight served as the positive controls. Freshly irradiated PRD diet fed to male mice of both strains caused an increase in early deaths in females mated to the males in week 7 and to a lesser extent in week 4. The increase due to irradiation was small by comparison with that produced by the positive control compound. The responses for the other irradiated diets showed no significant

increases in early deaths although some values for Oakes diet were high. The effect of storage was examined with PRD and BPN diet on one occasion and produced conflicting results. Thus there was some evidence that irradiated PRD diet has weak mutagenic activity in the meiotic and/or pre-meiotic phase of the spermatogenic cycle which appeared to be lessened on storage; the inclusion of such a diet in toxicological studies would therefore need to be carefully considered. PMID: 7207489 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]5) The effect of ionizing irradiation on sensory changes in feed in relation to their utilization by dogsVet Med (Praha) 1985 Dec;30(12):739-48, [Article in Czech]Smid K, Dvorak J, Hrusovsky J.To evaluate the effect of ionizing radiation on sensory changes of feeds in relation to their utilization by dogs, four groups of experimental animals were formed. Two groups were fed a ration where the main component (meat

feed mixture VETACAN and loose feed mixture VETAVIT) was irradiated by radioisotope Co 60 at the dose of 25 kGy/kg for the period of 90 days. In the remaining two groups a non-irradiated ration was used for the same period. For both diets, control groups of dogs were formed and the feed ration was biologically fortified by a vitamin-mineral supplement to the physiological standard. It followed from the observations that the effect of radiation caused a significant qualitative decrease in the level of energy nutrients, particularly in the protein and lipid sphere. It is assumed that the extent of damage of lipid fraction is also accompanied by deficient vitamin activity and further by significant changes of taste and aromatic properties felt by animals. Irradiation of the feed ration caused a significant 20 to 25% decrease of food intake with a subsequent decrease of live weight and deterioration of physical condition. Irradiated diets without biological

fortification caused significant losses of weight from the initial value mean = 39.5 kg to mean = 35.33 kg, in comparison with the non-irradiated rations through which the live weight was stabilized, and at biological fortification positively influenced. Irradiation of the feed ration during the period of study had not caused a response of the organism displayed in changes of physiological values of body temperature and heart and respiration rates in experimental animals. Radiosterilization of feeds had not caused any significant decrease of training ability and performance of dogs. PMID: 3937317 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]6) Immune response in rats given irradiated wheat.Br J Nutr 1978 Nov;40(3):535-41Vijayalaxmi.1. Rats given diets containing freshly-irradiated wheat showed significantly lower mean antibody titres to four different antigens, decreased numbers of antibody-forming cells in the spleen and rosette-forming

lymphocytes as compared to rats given either unirradiated wheat or irradiated wheat stored for a period of 12 weeks. 2. The immune response in rats given 90 g protein/kg diet was essentially similar to that seen in animals given 180 g protein/kg diet. PMID: 568934 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

[Guest guest]

May I add a comment to this?

 

A large scale study regardfing the effects of irradiated food was already done and the dangers well noted. That study happened inadvertently after the Chernobyl disaster. Those people who were downwind and ate the vegetables there had a high incidence of almost all chronic diseases. Food is radiated, not to protect us, but to dispose of nuclear waste. I no longer have the details on any of this but I think it is time to dig them up and forward them to or representatives who are probably unaware of them.

 

We must stop them from killing our food lest they kill us also!--- On Thu, 8/21/08, andrea brown <mlsw532000 wrote:

andrea brown <mlsw532000Re: Irradiated Spinach to Start Tomorrow... Why you Should NOT eat it... Date: Thursday, August 21, 2008, 10:45 PM

 

 

 

this is why i grow my own food.

 

zebra77a <zebra77a >Thursday, August 21, 2008 9:48:15 PM[Health_and_ Healing] Irradiated Spinach to Start Tomorrow... Why you Should NOT eat it...Look for this Symbol (in any color) - If it is a fresh product Don't Buy It. The irradiation industry, and governments world wide, have touted the effective irradiation of food products as a means to kill various and harmful bacteria and viruses. Unfortunately what they are not telling you is that in study after study there have been a plethora of negative side effects of FRESHLY irradiated products in test animals. Signs exhibited ranged from weakened immune systems, to weight loss, to other aberations in the test

subject.What is interesting to note is that food stored for 6 weeks after irradiation (such as grain products and spices) did not exhibit these effects in nearly so strongly a manner..Finally those of you who take the time to read the whole posting will quickly realize the con-job about to be played on the unsuspecting public. As you will read, the FDA has already basically sided with Big Business at the cost of your health. That means ONLY YOU WILL INFORM YOUR NEIGHBOUR. The FDA, the Media, and other Bodies will do NOTHING to tell you the truth about the dangerous side effects of freshly irradiated food.. It is up to you to copy this post and share with as many people as possible. Then when enough people know the difference we can exert serious pressure to keep our food unirradiated and simply get the food industry to simply use GOOD HYGIENE PRACTISES.http://www.trueheal th.org/nukedfood .htmlCatch the FDA Lying to Your Face..http://tinyurl. com/59zzmeDr. Laura Tarantino, director of the Office of Food Additive Safety at the F.D.A., said the agency had found no serious nutritional or safety changes associated with irradiation of spinach or lettuce."These irradiated foods are not less safe than others," Dr. Tarantino said, "and the doses are effective in reducing the level of disease-causing micro-organisms. " Catch the FDA and their plans for Super-Weak Irradiation Labelling- They are considering lowering the labelling standard with terms like 'electronically pasteurized' and 'cold pasteurized' - SO WATCH FOR IT."Acceptance of irradiated food would get a boost if it didn't have to be labeled as such, Doyle said. There's a food industry proposal

before the FDA to do just that, allowing processors to use the broad term "pasteurized" for several processes that kill pathogens, including irradiation. "http://www..chicagot ribune.com/ business/ chi...0,7539234. storyhttp://ga3.org/ cfs/alert- description. html?alert_ id=10233644Original Article:George L. Tritsch, PhDCancer Research Scientist, Roswell Park Memorial Institute, New York State Department of Health.I am speaking as a private citizen, and my opinions are my own, based on thirty-three years of experience since my doctorate at Cornell Medical College, Rockefeller University and, since 1959, as a cancer research scientist

and biochemist at Roswell.I am opposed to consuming irradiated food because of the 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. I will not address the reported destruction of vitamins and other nutrients (what? - more nutrient deficiencies? ; my comment) by irradiation because suitable supplementation of the diet can prevent the development of such potential deficiencies. However, I cannot protect myself from the carcinogenic and other harmful insults to the body placed into the food supples and I can see no tangible benefit to be traded for the possible increased incidence of malignant disease one to three decades in the future.Irradiation works by splitting chemical bonds in molecules with high energy beams to

form ions and free radicals. When sufficient critical bonds are split in organisms contaminating a food, the organism is killed. Comparable bonds are split in the food. Ions are stable; free radicals contain an unpaired electron and are inherently unstable and therefore reactive. How long free radicals remain in food treated with a given dose of radiation or the reaction products formed in a given food cannot be calculated but must be tested experimentally for each food. Different doses of radiation will produce different amounts and kinds of products.The kinds of bonds split in a given molecule are governed by statistical considerations. Thus, while most molecules of a given fatty acid, for example, may be split in a certain manner, other molecules of the same fatty acid will be split differently. A free radical can either combine with another free radical to form a stable compound, or it can initiate a [chemical] chain reaction by reacting

with a stable molecule to form another free radical, et cetera, until the chain is terminated by the reaction of two free radicals to form a stable compound. These reactions continue long after the irradiation procedure.I am bringing this up to give you a rationale for the vast number of new molecules that can be formed from irradiation of a single molecular species, to say nothing of a complicated mixture such as food. Furthermore, the final number and types of new molecules formed will depend on the other molecules present in the sample. Thus, free radicals originating from fats could form new compounds with proteins, nucleic acids [DNA], and so forth.[ found at: http://www.geocitie s.com/CapitolHil l/Lobby/8979/ page26.html

].Abstracts: [from the public archives of the National Library of Medicine]1) Micronucleus test in mice fed on an irradiated diet.Jpn J Vet Res 1989 Apr;37(2):41- 7Endoh D, Hashimoto N, Sato F, Kuwabara M.A mutagenicity study was carried out in mice fed on a gamma-irradiated diet. As an indicator of mutagenic activity, we observed an incidence of micronuclei in erythrocytes. The average body weight of the mice fed on the diet irradiated to dose range of 400-1,000 kGy decreased, and the mice fed on the 800-1,000 kGy-irradiated diet died during the period from 8 to 14 days after the start of feeding. On the other hand, when the mutagenic activity of the irradiated diet was tested by observing occurrence of micronucleus in erythrocytes, no significant increase was recognized. These results indicated that the

irradiated diet had no mutagenic activity, even though it possessed a toxic effect on the growth of mice. PMID: 2779058 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 2) Genetic effects of feeding irradiated wheat to mice.Can J Genet Cytol 1976 Jun;18(2):231- 8Vijayalaxmi.The effects of feeding irradiated wheat in mice on bone marrow and testis chromosomes, germ cell numbers and dominant lethal mutations were investigated. Feeding of freshly irradiated wheat resulted in significantly increased incidence of polyploid cells in bone marrow, aneuploid cells in testis, reduction in number of spermatogonia of types A, B and resting primary spermatocytes as well as a higher mutagenic index. Such a response was not observed when mice were fed stored irradiated wheat. Also there was no difference between the mice fed un-irradiated wheat and stored irradiated wheat. PMID: 990994 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 3) Chromosome studies on

bone marrow cells of Chinese hamsters fed a radiosterilized diet.Toxicology 1977 Oct;8(2):213- 22Renner HW.Metaphase preparations of chromosomes from bone marrow cells of Chinese hamsters were examined for mutagenic effects following the feeding of a radiosterilized diet. No increase in the incidence of structural chromosomal aberrations was observed. As far as numerical aberrrations were concerned, the proportion of cells with polyploidy increased to between 4 to 5 times the control level, irrespective of the moisture content of the diet. This polyploidy effect occurred very early, being detectable within 24 h, if the diet fed had been irradiated with an absorbed dose of 4.5 - 10(6) rad. The incidence of polyploidy remained below 0.5%, however, nor did it rise with higher radiation doses. When the feeding of the irradiated diet was stopped, the proportion of polyploid cells returned to the control level within a maximum of 6 weeks. If

the diet was stored (initially) for 6 weeks following irradiation before being fed to the animals no increase in the number of polyploid cells was noted. These results are not interpreted as a mutagenic effect of the irradiated diet. PMID: 929628 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]4) Irradiated laboratory animal diets: dominant lethal studies in the mouse.Mutat Res 1981 Feb;80(2):333- 45Anderson D, Clapp MJ, Hodge MC, Weight TM.In 4 separate dominant lethal experiments groups of mice of either Charles River CD1 or Alderley Park strains were fed laboratory diets (Oakes, 41B, PRD, BP nutrition rat and mouse maintenance diet No. 1). The diets were either untreated (negative control diets) or irradiated at 1, 2.5 and 5 megarad and were freshly irradiated, or stored. The animals were fed their test diets for a period of 3 weeks prior to mating. Groups of mice given a single intraperitoneal injection of 200 mg cyclophosphamide per kg

body weight served as the positive controls. Freshly irradiated PRD diet fed to male mice of both strains caused an increase in early deaths in females mated to the males in week 7 and to a lesser extent in week 4. The increase due to irradiation was small by comparison with that produced by the positive control compound. The responses for the other irradiated diets showed no significant increases in early deaths although some values for Oakes diet were high. The effect of storage was examined with PRD and BPN diet on one occasion and produced conflicting results. Thus there was some evidence that irradiated PRD diet has weak mutagenic activity in the meiotic and/or pre-meiotic phase of the spermatogenic cycle which appeared to be lessened on storage; the inclusion of such a diet in toxicological studies would therefore need to be carefully considered. PMID: 7207489 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]5) The effect of ionizing irradiation on

sensory changes in feed in relation to their utilization by dogsVet Med (Praha) 1985 Dec;30(12):739- 48, [Article in Czech]Smid K, Dvorak J, Hrusovsky J.To evaluate the effect of ionizing radiation on sensory changes of feeds in relation to their utilization by dogs, four groups of experimental animals were formed. Two groups were fed a ration where the main component (meat feed mixture VETACAN and loose feed mixture VETAVIT) was irradiated by radioisotope Co 60 at the dose of 25 kGy/kg for the period of 90 days. In the remaining two groups a non-irradiated ration was used for the same period. For both diets, control groups of dogs were formed and the feed ration was biologically fortified by a vitamin-mineral supplement to the physiological standard. It followed from the observations that the effect of radiation caused a significant qualitative decrease in the level of energy nutrients, particularly in the protein and lipid sphere. It

is assumed that the extent of damage of lipid fraction is also accompanied by deficient vitamin activity and further by significant changes of taste and aromatic properties felt by animals. Irradiation of the feed ration caused a significant 20 to 25% decrease of food intake with a subsequent decrease of live weight and deterioration of physical condition. Irradiated diets without biological fortification caused significant losses of weight from the initial value mean = 39.5 kg to mean = 35.33 kg, in comparison with the non-irradiated rations through which the live weight was stabilized, and at biological fortification positively influenced. Irradiation of the feed ration during the period of study had not caused a response of the organism displayed in changes of physiological values of body temperature and heart and respiration rates in experimental animals. Radiosterilization of feeds had not caused any significant decrease of training ability and

performance of dogs. PMID: 3937317 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]6) Immune response in rats given irradiated wheat.Br J Nutr 1978 Nov;40(3):535- 41Vijayalaxmi.1. Rats given diets containing freshly-irradiated wheat showed significantly lower mean antibody titres to four different antigens, decreased numbers of antibody-forming cells in the spleen and rosette-forming lymphocytes as compared to rats given either unirradiated wheat or irradiated wheat stored for a period of 12 weeks. 2. The immune response in rats given 90 g protein/kg diet was essentially similar to that seen in animals given 180 g protein/kg diet. PMID: 568934 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

[Guest guest]

Unfortunately, it will not be mandatory to label irradiated veggies

with that symbol. So you will never know if it is or isn't. It makes

me so mad that this is the option for growers, instead of cleaning up

their act and giving us clean produce.

 

The other option - make sure your produce has been grown organically.

Organic farms have to pass so many more stringent safety measures

than non-organic farms do.

 

Carol

 

, " zebra77a " <zebra77a

wrote:

 

> Look for this Symbol (in any color) - If it is a fresh product Don't

Buy It.

>

[Guest guest]

I think it is mandatory to irradiate all spinach and lettuce---even organic from what I understand--so i wouldn't consider any of it safe for consumption. A really good thing to grow for greens is Swiss Chard--it grows back as you cut it---and even overwinters in mild areas. I grew some just in wondow boxes last year.--- On Mon, 8/25/08, bluegreensolutions <bluegreensolutions wrote:

bluegreensolutions <bluegreensolutions Re: Irradiated Spinach to Start Tomorrow... Why you Should NOT eat it... Date: Monday, August 25, 2008, 10:59 AM

 

 

Unfortunately, it will not be mandatory to label irradiated veggieswith that symbol. So you will never know if it is or isn't. It makesme so mad that this is the option for growers, instead of cleaning uptheir act and giving us clean produce. The other option - make sure your produce has been grown organically.Organic farms have to pass so many more stringent safety measuresthan non-organic farms do. Carol, "zebra77a" <zebra77a@.. .>wrote:> Look for this Symbol (in any color) - If it is a fresh product Don'tBuy It.>

[Guest guest]

I always bring in two pots full of swiss chard to last me the winter. They are still growing in the pots from last year on the deck. Along with my current garden row of plants.

 

Jackie

 

-

Bea Bernhausen

Monday, August 25, 2008 2:09 PM

Re: Re: Irradiated Spinach to Start Tomorrow... Why you Should NOT eat it...

 

 

 

 

I think it is mandatory to irradiate all spinach and lettuce---even organic from what I understand--so i wouldn't consider any of it safe for consumption. A really good thing to grow for greens is Swiss Chard--it grows back as you cut it---and even overwinters in mild areas. I grew some just in wondow boxes last year.--- On Mon, 8/25/08, bluegreensolutions <bluegreensolutions wrote:

bluegreensolutions <bluegreensolutions Re: Irradiated Spinach to Start Tomorrow... Why you Should NOT eat it... Date: Monday, August 25, 2008, 10:59 AM

 

 

Unfortunately, it will not be mandatory to label irradiated veggieswith that symbol. So you will never know if it is or isn't. It makesme so mad that this is the option for growers, instead of cleaning uptheir act and giving us clean produce. The other option - make sure your produce has been grown organically.Organic farms have to pass so many more stringent safety measuresthan non-organic farms do. Carol

__________

Click here for to find products that will help grow your small business.

[Guest guest]

Good to know that Swiss chard grows well. I just ordered my organic

seeds so that I can get my own greens growing and never depend on

store bought irradiated produce anymore. Yuk. Josephine

 

 

 

, <Hill8628 wrote:

>

> I always bring in two pots full of swiss chard to last me the

winter. They are still growing in the pots from last year on the

deck. Along with my current garden row of plants.

>

> Jackie

>

[Guest guest]

The only way is to grow your own now

 

Jane

 

 

Hill8628

 

I always bring in two pots full of swiss chard to last me the winter. They are still growing in the pots from last year on the deck. Along with my current garden row of plants.

 

Jackie