Guest guest Posted August 22, 2008 Report Share Posted August 22, 2008 What symbol....it's not showing up in this post > > > > 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.html > <http://www.truehealth.org/nukedfood.html> > > Catch the FDA Lying to Your Face.. > > http://tinyurl.com/59zzme > Dr. 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.story > <http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-spinach-radiation-aug21,0,75\ > 39234.story> > http://ga3.org/cfs/alert-description.html?alert_id=10233644 > <http://ga3.org/cfs/alert-description.html?alert_id=10233644> > > Original Article: > > > 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> > http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/8979/page26.html > <http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/8979/page26.html> ]. > > > > > Abstracts: [from the public archives of the National Library of > Medicine <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi> ] > > > 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 > D, Clapp MJ, Hodge MC, Weight TM. > In 4 separate dominant lethal experiments groups of mice of either > 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] > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.