I have a very good science education and because of this I don't like
the concept of irradiated food or come to think of it microwaved food,
it may be accepted by the masses but that doesn't make it correct. We
often hear about this food being good and that food being bad, but then
then a while later another report refutes the claims so in reality noone
really knows what is good or bad - because it is too complex to understand.
The other reason is there are far too many variables which cannot be
controlled, so when they say a certain people live longer because they
eat fish not every variable is accounted for e.g simple examples
being how is the food prepared, what else is it eaten with, what drinks
are consumed is it irradiated, fresh or has it been frozen etc etc.
I understand many things but freely admit to not fully understanding
what would be removed form our food by irradiation, all I know is that
most of us might not be getting it right , take for example the recent
research (source my wife who is studying to be a dietician) that says
vitamin pills are not effective so hence a waste of time and money ,
sure they have the vitamins in chemical form but the body doesn't
absorb them as well as it does when they are real natural and in food -
why is that? .
On 06/01/2011 16:03, Bill Pearce wrote:
> we wouldn't need poison if we could have irradiated food, but all the old
> maids with poor science education won't let us.
>
>
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|