>"the "nothing but good" claim is as preposterous as the claim of
>complete knowledge that it rests on."
>
>Lets see some evidence

Steve, if you're asking for evidence, you missed my point.  It's because 
of all the evidence we *DON'T* have that the "nothing but good" claim is 
preposterous.

As an aside, it should be noted that what evidence we do have is largely 
limited by (and potentially biased by) financial incentives to fund the 
research.  The financial incentives to "prove the safety" of a new 
technology (i.e. to not discover any statistically significant dangers) 
greatly exceed the incentives to prove the uselessness of a new technology.

My original point, though, was to defend the reasonableness of maintaining 
doubts about the safety of irradiation in the absence of complete 
knowledge (omniscience), especially given the newness of the technology.  
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.

Eric

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