-Your point which seems to be that using manure is a more dangerous way to grow food compared to the safe fertilizers which come from chemical factories.-
I agree you that manure is, if not necessarily superior, certainly more natural than using industrial chemicals as fertilizer. However, my point was simply that irradiation, being used to kill pathogens on produce that is generally eaten raw, would have the greatest benefit if it were used on organic foods that are literally sprayed with manure multiple times over the course of the growing season. Sadly, I suspect there isn't much of a market for organic, irradiated arugula among the Whole Foods crowd. :/
Funaro, you found an article that required registration to read so I skipped it, but I am familiar with the arguments against irradiation. A web search for "NIH, food irradiation" links to dozens of PubMed articles detailing decades long studies of the safety and efficacy of food irradiation. I'll take the published, peer-reviewed medical research studies over the Mercola article.
C. Funaro - 16 years ago
Irradiation is not safe and is not proven to be without harm. See http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2000/11/05/food-irradiation-part-two.aspx
for more information about food irradiation. What is convenient and basically a CYA for the big food companies is not necessarily what is safe for the consumer.
Ooops, I reread your post and mine and realized that it wasn't necessarily obvious why my point was relevant. Your point which seems to be that using manure is a more dangerous way to grow food compared to the safe fertilizers which come from chemical factories. My point above is the counter argument to that.
The 3 basic elements (phosphorus, nitrogen and potassium) which are industrial fertilizers are more healthy than the complex and living manure that these plants have evolved with for the past few million years? Nitrogen, which accounts for 56% of US fertilizer, is synthesized from natural gas and coal (http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/prb0749-e.htm#fertilizer)
Alex - 16 years ago
Whoops. Should have been "fertilized with raw manure," not irradiated.
Alex - 16 years ago
I've been in the nuclear power industry for 10 years. Irradiating food does not affect taste, cellular structure or nutrition in any measurable way, which is the same as saying "not at all". It is ironic that the people most concerned about organic foods are the ones who would most benefit from food irradiation, given that their food is irradiated with raw manure rather than industrial fertilizers.
Some how, I suspect that's not what Adam had in mind with his comment, however.
Adam - 16 years ago
My fiancee' is a dietetics student; one of her professors put it best: "You can irradiate shit, but you're still eating shit."
-Your point which seems to be that using manure is a more dangerous way to grow food compared to the safe fertilizers which come from chemical factories.-
I agree you that manure is, if not necessarily superior, certainly more natural than using industrial chemicals as fertilizer. However, my point was simply that irradiation, being used to kill pathogens on produce that is generally eaten raw, would have the greatest benefit if it were used on organic foods that are literally sprayed with manure multiple times over the course of the growing season. Sadly, I suspect there isn't much of a market for organic, irradiated arugula among the Whole Foods crowd. :/
Funaro, you found an article that required registration to read so I skipped it, but I am familiar with the arguments against irradiation. A web search for "NIH, food irradiation" links to dozens of PubMed articles detailing decades long studies of the safety and efficacy of food irradiation. I'll take the published, peer-reviewed medical research studies over the Mercola article.
Irradiation is not safe and is not proven to be without harm. See http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2000/11/05/food-irradiation-part-two.aspx
for more information about food irradiation. What is convenient and basically a CYA for the big food companies is not necessarily what is safe for the consumer.
Ooops, I reread your post and mine and realized that it wasn't necessarily obvious why my point was relevant. Your point which seems to be that using manure is a more dangerous way to grow food compared to the safe fertilizers which come from chemical factories. My point above is the counter argument to that.
The 3 basic elements (phosphorus, nitrogen and potassium) which are industrial fertilizers are more healthy than the complex and living manure that these plants have evolved with for the past few million years? Nitrogen, which accounts for 56% of US fertilizer, is synthesized from natural gas and coal (http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/prb0749-e.htm#fertilizer)
Whoops. Should have been "fertilized with raw manure," not irradiated.
I've been in the nuclear power industry for 10 years. Irradiating food does not affect taste, cellular structure or nutrition in any measurable way, which is the same as saying "not at all". It is ironic that the people most concerned about organic foods are the ones who would most benefit from food irradiation, given that their food is irradiated with raw manure rather than industrial fertilizers.
Some how, I suspect that's not what Adam had in mind with his comment, however.
My fiancee' is a dietetics student; one of her professors put it best: "You can irradiate shit, but you're still eating shit."