3 ms·

Shucks, I had a feeling this was too good to be true.. http://www.mercola.com/article/irradiated/irradiation_dangers.htm http://www.mercola.com/article/irradia

Shucks, I had a feeling this was too good to be true.. http://www.mercola.com/article/irradiated/irradiation_dangers.htm http://www.mercola.com/article/irradiated/irradiation_danger... EDIT: rspeer, fair request.. > The sensitivity of vitamins to radiation is unpredictable and food vitamin losses during the irradiation are often substantial. [0] > Using a Co60 source, repeated irradiation of survivors of bacterial cultures at a level initially destroying a high proportion of cells gave rise to strains which were more resistant to irradiation than the original cultures.[1] > Fecal coliform concentrations higher than 10(2) CFU/g (Brazilian standard) were found in 97 (73%) of the samples, and Salmonella was detected in 4 (3%) of the samples.[2] 0: http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1516-89132009000500026 http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1516... 1: http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/m61-027 http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/m61-027 2: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17536694 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17536694 --- > a blatant agenda Here's a couple more in-depth articles on food irradiation to review his bias and see if you can trust his info in the future: http://www.mercola.com/article/irradiated/nuclear_lunch.htm http://www.mercola.com/article/irradiated/nuclear_lunch.htm https://www.mercola.com/article/irradiated/irradiation.htm https://www.mercola.com/article/irradiated/irradiation.htm

rspeer 11y ago
Can you find a link to a site without such a blatant agenda?
CaptainZapp 11y ago
You're no really trying to make a case by linking to Mercola's site? What's up next? Chemtrails? Edit to add : Mr Mercola and his ilk is one of the most aggressive and virulent antivaxers.
- mitchtbaum 11y ago
  I linked to three studies cited by more than 50 other studies, each. How about taking a look at them? If their information matches with Mercola's account and you support these studies approaches, the researchers, or both, then you can kindly take back your self-proven, inaccurate attack... Those who attack messengers, receive only messages they like, if any.
- DiabloD3 11y ago
  Mercola is a bit of flipping a coin, in my opinion. A lot of what he says is "well researched", but said to pander to the crowd you're thinking of. The articles that aren't fringe bullshit are actually pretty well done. Unfortunately, for every legitimate article on his site, there's a "microwaves destroy food" and "cell phones eat your soul" type of article. tl;dr: I'd use Mercola as a secondary link backing up more legitimate primary links, but I wouldn't base my entire argument on them.

rspeer 11y ago

Can you find a link to a site without such a blatant agenda?

CaptainZapp 11y ago

You're no really trying to make a case by linking to Mercola's site? What's up next? Chemtrails? Edit to add : Mr Mercola and his ilk is one of the most aggressive and virulent antivaxers.

mitchtbaum 11y ago
I linked to three studies cited by more than 50 other studies, each. How about taking a look at them? If their information matches with Mercola's account and you support these studies approaches, the researchers, or both, then you can kindly take back your self-proven, inaccurate attack... Those who attack messengers, receive only messages they like, if any.
DiabloD3 11y ago
Mercola is a bit of flipping a coin, in my opinion. A lot of what he says is "well researched", but said to pander to the crowd you're thinking of. The articles that aren't fringe bullshit are actually pretty well done. Unfortunately, for every legitimate article on his site, there's a "microwaves destroy food" and "cell phones eat your soul" type of article. tl;dr: I'd use Mercola as a secondary link backing up more legitimate primary links, but I wouldn't base my entire argument on them.