Eric Brown wrote:
> The scientific process which "proved the safety" of asbestos some fifty 
> years ago is the same scientific process that would offer any evidence of 
> the safety of irradiation today.  In the face of unknowns, history is a 
> much better guide than inflated science.
Actually, scientific evidence does show that asbestos is not the 
problem. There are villages in Turkey built with high asbestos 
concentrated clay and no problems. However, add smoking to the mix and 
you will have major lung problems. But add smoking to just about any air 
borne particle mix and you have problems. But you have problems with 
smoking alone. The death rate for those who came in contact with 
asbestos and who smoke is slightly higher than those who only smoked. 
Asbestos has the bad rap because of junk science and friendly juries. 
Look at the same results with breast implants. Bad science, litigation 
and bad results. Nothing new here.

I do have some trouble seeing just what irradiation does to food to make 
it unsafe. If we want un-irradiated food we better change Earth's 
atmosphere to lead.  Better yet, let's sue the sun.

BTW, I worked in shipyards back when there was no requirement for face 
masks while asbestos pipes were ripped out and dust was all over. No 
lung problems, but I do not smoke. A friend does have breathing problems 
but they smoked and never came close to asbestos.

Bill Truesdell
Bath, Maine

******************************************************
* Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at:          *
* http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm  *
******************************************************