Posted by brianc on August 02, 2001 at 13:40:21:
In Reply to: What do you know? posted by seldom seen slim on August 02, 2001 at 13:05:54:
Are often extremely wrong! Just like easy answers to complicated issues.
There are more issues involved in food irradiation than nuclear power versus other irradiation sources. That's just an emotional handle used to allow lazy people to think they understand an issue. Food nutritional quality, transportation, economics and other associated issues must all be considered. If irradiation was the easy answer some present it as, it would be in use by commercial operations. It has been tried (as early as the 60's at UCD - Post Harvest Technology by Dr. Adel Kader).
Workable answers are often found in the middle. Those of us finding those answers rarely seek out media attention - who has the time?
And yes, I live by what I say. My graduate research showed a possible 40,60, and at times 100% reduction could be made in the major herbicide application to CA processing tomatoes without long-term consequences. UC has incorporated that research into it's recommendations. In my professional life, I've been directly involved in a 40% reduction in aerial sulfer sprays in Napa Valley alone (the method is now the industry standard), 50% reduction in fungicides on apples in Chile, 50% reduction in pesticides on cotton in Egypt, plus more).
On the other side, research at Cornell has shown the organically acceptable alternative to an apple fungicide is more environmentally harmful than the synthetic fungicide.
Whether its environmental or diving issues, swallowing the loudest person's beliefs whole without any personal research is a bad idea.
Post a Followup