Well, you know what they say, pepper.

>>I get tired and frustrated of people who have complete access to the net, not taking the time to research it fully and draw correct conclusions.<<

You can lead a horse to water etc...

But clearly, this one ain't drinking.

>>You are obviously convinced that irradiated food is safe. I am equally convinced that it is harmful, and yes, I do still regard it as poisoning our bodies.<<

The good thing about statements like that, is that in order to make them, you don't actually need explanation or justification.

Or facts, come to that.

O.K. Pepper and Pericles,

I haven't gotten around to learning how to post links yet, but have some sites you may find interesting to read, and there are many more research papers on this subject too.
Medical News Today
Mindfully.org
Mercola.com

Pepper,
Although we did chemistry in our high school too, I didn't major in atomic chemistry as you did.
BTW, nutrient loss can be 20-80%.

As many others also studied at high school, I think you sell people short with your sweeping statement that 99% don't know the difference between radiation and irradiation.
However, 365 word limit doesn't allow for in depth discussion - that would take at least 1 book covering chromosonal damage, how many rads equal 1 Gy, effect on cell structure, free radicals, nutrient loss etc. etc. A post is not appropriate for a history lesson, so of necessity must be distilled.
Like many others, I am disturbed that when adverse effects have been found [and they have]through various studies and experiments, they are dismissed as negligible when compared to the so-called benefits.
Especially when long term effects are an unknown. Theories so far presented are just that. We should be asking for more facts on adverse findings, and more long term overall studies.

Shadow Minister,

Tuberose.com is a site worth reading. They have no vested financial interest in either promoting or decrying irradiation, but simply present facts.

If this article is correct, the longest study on humans who were given irradiated food is a mere 15 weeks.

To date, I've mainly read articles put forward by proponents of irridation with the assurances that it is safe. The more I read, the warier I become that official reports are not giving us the whole story - some of which they themselves don't presently know, as all the possible changes over the long term have yet to be discovered.
So while I understand the process, the beneficial effects just don't justify using it if there are also adverse effects on the human body, however slight we are told they are.

WW

Tuberose.com "This self-help alternative medicine site offers extensive educational information on the topics of natural healing" clearly has a vested interest in rubbishing anything that is not natural.

Irradiating food is one of the methods of preserving food, which includes Heating, preservatives, salting, pickling. No method leaves the food unaltered.

For a summary of decades of research with all the pros and cons:

http://fri.wisc.edu/docs/pdf/foodirrd.pdf

Shadow Minister,

I agree with you, no method of food preparation leaves the food unaltered, but still maintain that this process has increased potential to harm us when compared to those methods we have been using for many years, and we are fully aware of their effect.
The point I've tried to make is that we haven't to date been fully informed about irradiation because it is still under study. The link you provided was dated 1999 - 14 years ago

So far all the studies I've found appear to have been done prior to 2000, and am currently searching for more recent ones. The study done on malnourished Indian children was discontinued when chromosomal damage was noted. Likewise with the studies done on animals. Again these were terminated when adverse effects were noted.

Yes Tuberose has an interest in promoting alternative medicine, but the points they make have validity, as do others I have read which are offering facts without promoting anything other than awareness. These various organisations do not blindly accept what they are told, and without them we wouldn't hear of the downside of experiments.

Governments and powerful companies tend to skate over anything which may not conform with what they promote. For instance, the jury is still out regarding GM food, but it is already in widespread use. Monsanto is a typical example of a company which has tampered with nature to ensure increased profit.

Worldwatcher, if you truly have an interest in discussing scientific studies, then I invite you to use Google Scholar to find them. You will find plenty of recent studies done on irradiated food, with measurements on nutrient levels etc. There are studies even on aflatoxins and their reduction after irradiation.

I would be happy to discuss anything that is actually in the scientific literature and properly referenced. For a reference, the minimum required is the paper title, author, year published, so that we know which paper we are discussing. References to studies such as "the study done on malnourished Indian children" is not acceptable, as I cannot find what you are talking about.

What I won't do is discuss polemics on websites selling health supplements and 'detox' products.

Anyway, use Scholar and have an interesting time.