3 ms·

> Fear-mongering nonsense. Irradiation doesn't make food radioactive. It just kills what's growing on the food without noxious chemicals. Is that all they're d

> Fear-mongering nonsense. Irradiation doesn't make food radioactive. It just kills what's growing on the food without noxious chemicals. Is that all they're doing? They said something similar about dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT). > A slam. Nobody literally uses sewage sludge to grow food, unless you're talking about nightsoil (human excrement used as fertilizer), which is entirely organic. Some farms do use untreated sewage sludge to grow food. As for human excrement, the chemical and bacterial content is very different depending on the diet of the humans in question. > genetic engineering We don't yet know all the side effects of genetic engineering. We also don't know what has been hidden or destroyed by corporations that want to hide the 2% mutant plant that ate the research team. I'm being funny and exaggerative, but we really don't know.

falcolas 14y ago
>> Fear-mongering nonsense. Irradiation doesn't make food radioactive. It just kills what's growing on the food without noxious chemicals. > Is that all they're doing? They said something similar about dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT). Might not want to open your mail then. Some of it is irradiated to kill bacteria and viruses, based on origin and destination. Probably don't want to use bandaids, either, since they are irradiated to steralize them. > Some farms do use untreated sewage sludge to grow food. As for human excrement, the chemical and bacterial content is very different depending on the diet of the humans in question. Whose sewage? Human is dangerous, due to the fact that human pathogens can carry over from one incarnation to the next. Livestock, not so much; and is commonly used in "organic" fertilizers.
derleth 14y ago
> They said something similar about dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT). Ooooh scary letters. To be clear: DDT is not very toxic to humans. The reason we stopped using it was because it was becoming not very toxic to mosquitoes, as well, as they evolved resistance, in addition to what it was doing to birds. We still use DDT in regions where malaria is most dangerous. http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Actives/ddt.htm http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Actives/ddt.htm > In one study involving humans, 17 people ate 35 mg/man daily (about 0.5 mg/kg daily) for 18 months suffering no ill-effect(25). In another study volunteers ate 0.31 to 0.61 mg/kg daily without any noticeable effects(26). http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/tutorials/The_theory_of_natural_selection__part_1_13.asp http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/tutorials/The_theo... > DDT-resistant mosquitoes were first detected in India in 1959, and they have increased so rapidly that when a local spray program is begun now, most mosquitoes become resistant in a matter of months rather than years. Also: > We also don't know what has been hidden or destroyed by corporations Without any evidence, this is fear-mongering. This is what fear-mongering is. Using rumors and innuendo to make people afraid without saying anything of substance.
- inafield 14y ago
  You are being mocking and misunderstanding my intent. A proper scientific approach would independently and fully evaluate the effects rather than assuming it is "ok". That is not fear-mongering, it is good scientific process that requires a unbiased oversight. Is the issue potentially slight? Yes. Is it still an issue? Yes.

falcolas 14y ago

>> Fear-mongering nonsense. Irradiation doesn't make food radioactive. It just kills what's growing on the food without noxious chemicals. > Is that all they're doing? They said something similar about dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT). Might not want to open your mail then. Some of it is irradiated to kill bacteria and viruses, based on origin and destination. Probably don't want to use bandaids, either, since they are irradiated to steralize them. > Some farms do use untreated sewage sludge to grow food. As for human excrement, the chemical and bacterial content is very different depending on the diet of the humans in question. Whose sewage? Human is dangerous, due to the fact that human pathogens can carry over from one incarnation to the next. Livestock, not so much; and is commonly used in "organic" fertilizers.

derleth 14y ago

> They said something similar about dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT). Ooooh scary letters. To be clear: DDT is not very toxic to humans. The reason we stopped using it was because it was becoming not very toxic to mosquitoes, as well, as they evolved resistance, in addition to what it was doing to birds. We still use DDT in regions where malaria is most dangerous. http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Actives/ddt.htm http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Actives/ddt.htm > In one study involving humans, 17 people ate 35 mg/man daily (about 0.5 mg/kg daily) for 18 months suffering no ill-effect(25). In another study volunteers ate 0.31 to 0.61 mg/kg daily without any noticeable effects(26). http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/tutorials/The_theory_of_natural_selection__part_1_13.asp http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/tutorials/The_theo... > DDT-resistant mosquitoes were first detected in India in 1959, and they have increased so rapidly that when a local spray program is begun now, most mosquitoes become resistant in a matter of months rather than years. Also: > We also don't know what has been hidden or destroyed by corporations Without any evidence, this is fear-mongering. This is what fear-mongering is. Using rumors and innuendo to make people afraid without saying anything of substance.

inafield 14y ago
You are being mocking and misunderstanding my intent. A proper scientific approach would independently and fully evaluate the effects rather than assuming it is "ok". That is not fear-mongering, it is good scientific process that requires a unbiased oversight. Is the issue potentially slight? Yes. Is it still an issue? Yes.