Enjoyed the site, but not much of the "proofs".
Irradiation is approved by a slew of scientific and food organizations including the Food and Drug Administration, the World Health Organization and the American Medical Association.
The experiments on the web page reminds me of the rat experiments back when I did my paper on DDT 30 years. All I can say is that the rat experiments I encountered - and have encountered since - were often pretty poor and on occasion outright criminal.
My favorite resulted in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Cancer Society. The two "scientists" had discovered that DDT caused tumors on the reproductive organs of rats, This was of course picked up by the LA Times as "DDT linked to cancer of the reproductive organs. (You would never believe how often tumors become cancers.)
The truth? These so-called scientists had given 250,000 times the average human exposure of a technical DDT to neonates on the first, second and third day of their lives. (I can't remember whether they gave it on the 4th day.) For some reason I assumed they had fed it to the rats. A biologist from up north of me put me right - calling me "too conservative".
These idiots had injected (!) this technical DDT on each of the first days of their lives. So, what happened?
Nothing.
So, they kept the rats around until they reached the human equivalent of the forties and then found tumors. Wow! Success - and 15 minutes of fame.
If you frighten rats they can get tumors. Florescent lights can give them tumors. Heck, feeding them raisins can give them tumors. Keep them around long enough and they'll probably get tumors just to spite us.
So, put a saltcellar on your desk when you look at many of these sites though you will only need a grain or two.
Many of these sites start out with the premise that radiation is bad, then look for anything that may corroborate it.
Hey! That sounds like the modus operandi of the IPCC.
Harry
-------------------------------------------
William wrote:
Harry,
There are a bunch of sites like the following for your perusal. I have not evaluated this one but it looks interesting:
http://www.mercola.com/article/Diet/irradiated/irradiated_research.htm
Bill
On Fri, 30 May 2003 14:27:06 -0700 Harry Pollard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Bill, > > It isn't controversial. It's simply a political furor stimulated by > political agendas - I would think by the anti-nuclear fanatics. > > On the other hand, we know a lot about salmonella > > Meantime, although Keith doesn't believe it, there seems to be > evidence > that low-level radiation is good for us. > > Harry
**************************************************** Harry Pollard Henry George School of Social Science of Los Angeles Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 Tel: (818) 352-4141 -- Fax: (818) 353-2242 http://home.attbi.com/~haledward ****************************************************
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.486 / Virus Database: 284 - Release Date: 5/29/2003
