Login Form  

H.W. Mailing Lists  

Enter your e-mail to join the H.W. community mailing list, and get involved.   Learn More

--- or ---

Enter your e-mail to join the H.W. notifications only list for just official announcements. This is a very low traffic mailing list.

Top 100 Stories  

Cure Hypothyroidism
Chewing Gum
Amish and Autism
Brown Recluse Spiders
Eliminating Parasites
Antacids
Gallstones
Remedy Scabies
Ignore Dentists
Gardasil Whistle Blower
Budwig Regimen
pH Food Chart
Silica Supplements
Natural Stimulants
Curing Milia
The Cancer Report
Iodine Supplementation
Treating Depression
M.M.S. Fraud
Body pH
Eliminate Shingles
Disposable Diapers
Subway Shame
hCG Diet Scam
Soy Dangers
S.S.R.I. Drugs
Curing Celiac Disease
Cure Autism
Curing Ulcers
Best Supplements
Copper Lotion
Air Fresheners
Dieting Right
Dr. Andrew Weil
Michael J. Fox
MSG and Taurine
Consumer Lab
Bee Stings
Curing Allergies
Rancid Oils
Vaccine Ingredients
Heart Disease
Forbidden Fruits
Foot Cleanses
Bell's Palsy
Hormone Regulator
Migraine Headaches
Zinc Supplements
Chlorophyll Supplementation
Table Salt
Niacin Supplements
Eliminating Fleas
Canola Oil
The Green Drink
Eye Drops
Everyone Has A.D.D.
Cleansing
Jim Humble Debate
Audio Archive
Decaffeinated Drinks
Medical Quotations
Poisonous Plastics
Ear Aches
Erectile Dysfunction
Forced Experiments
Swine Flu
Modified Foods
Curing Diabetes
Toxic Tampons
Kentucky Fried Chicken
God's Nutrition
Monsanto Killing Bees
Activated Carbon
Corruption At WikiAnswers
Low Platelet Counts
Chemical Fertilizers
Sodium Benzoate
Cayenne Pepper
ACS: Cancers Heal
Fire Safe Cigarettes
Treating Epilepsy
Sunscreen Lies
Dangerous Light Bulbs
PLU numbers
Non-Stick Cookware
DCA Fraud
Treating Hepatitis
Lung Infections
Dangerous Deodorants
Spray Tanning
Quickly Shift Body pH
Hand Sanitizers
So Evil
Whole Foods Market
Remedy Food Poisoning
Cluster Headaches
Radioactive Foods
Contact Lens Problems
Video: Obamacare
Mike Adams

The F.D.A.'s Push For Radioactive ("Irradiated") Foods

Written by Print  E-mail

Yet Another Reason To Choose Organic Foods

Reprinted from Naturally Good Magazine, issue 3, by the They're So Evil Department.  Users of microwaves and mayonnaise are especially encouraged to read this article.

Radiation is being used to enhance some of the foods that are being shipped to retail locations throughout the United States as you read this. This report explains the situation, politics, history, and what is being presented by profiteers as the 'science' of food irradiation.  As expected, quite a bit of deception is being used to trick the public into consuming these foods without its consent, for everyone knows that public consent will never happen.

One half-truth being used in the deception is that all irradiated (radioactive) foods must be clearly labeled as such.  While this may be superficially true, if individual ingredients comprising a food are irradiated, instead of just the final product, then no labeling is required.  You can safely bet that the final products are never labeled.

One outright lie is that irradiated foods do not remain radioactive, and this lie violates the laws of physics.  Once something is made radioactive, or is exposed to high radiation, it remains radioactive for a considerable time afterward.  Radioactive items may also make other things in contact with them radioactive as well.  This ‘contagious’ property of radiation is one of the things that makes it so dangerous, and it is why people in many countries who are undergoing radiation treatments are told to avoid contact with children.  In the studies we saw, the radioactivity of foods declined by only 45% after 10 days.  Make note that the typical level of radiation being used is 200,000,000 times that of an X-ray, so even after 10 days, the residual radioactivity would still be that of something exposed to over 100,000,000 X-rays.

The Status Quo of Food Safety

You can bet this will disappear from the F.D.A.'s site, if it hasn't already. Click to enlarge.

There are about 325,000 hospitalizations each year due to food poisonings, and the numbers appear to be getting worse annually.  Our foods are laced with preservatives and other additives which are supposed to ensure that they do not “go bad” before consumption, yet we still get sick.  Food poisoning is not at all limited to restaurant food.  There are thousands of reports of food poisoning from dried and processed frozen foods.  There have always been food poisoning reports about the meats sold in grocery stores, and there were recent scares over peanuts and tomatoes.  Organic growers, and health advocates have noted that food poisonings are usually due to poor hygiene in the slaughter and packing houses, along with laxity in the cleaning of crops; so reducing the number of food poisoning cases would be a easy task, if an honest effort was made.  Unfortunately, it could also be an expensive one.  It would mean that processing plants would follow legislation that is already in place, and that action would be taken whenever the U.S.D.A. inspectors notice hygiene problems.  It would be a big change from the status quo.

“In the 1950’s we condemned carcasses with fecal contamination, in the 1970’s it was cut off, in the 1980’s it was washed off, and in the 1990’s it is eaten."

-- Mr. Delmer Jones, Head of the Meat Inspectors Union, 2000


In the biggest recall of 2002, one woman died and at least 46 people were sickened from e. coli found in ground beef from a ConAgra plant in Greeley, Colorado.  The Agriculture Department’s Inspector General disclosed that the plant had been cited 66 times for fecal contamination from January 2001 until it was temporarily closed in November of 2002.

“Most systems will work and protect the consumer if you’ve got two things: teeth and enforcement. But in many plants the safety plans are still just smoke and mirrors.”

-- Delmer Jones

They Create The Problem, and Then Offer “The Solution” That They Wanted All Along

Instead of dealing with the causes of the problems, the establishment is responding in its typical fashion; by attempting to treat only the symptoms.  High-ranking members of the F.D.A. are now proclaiming that the epidemic of infected foods provides proof that our foods need radiation to be safe -- never mind this was never before necessary in the previous 9,000 years of food history.  Radiation has been approved for most fruits, vegetables, and meats.  In many cases, radiation-tainted foods can be sold without labeling.  A warning label would reduce the profits, because informed citizens would rarely purchase irradiated foods with full disclosure; and they know it.  The hostile reaction from Europeans has caused the new U.S. food irradiation industry to proceed in a cloaked manner.

 

"There's a whole impact on the product, which we think is an unacceptable cost... People that did the shopping -- they would look at the date and be freaked out at how long it would be good for.”

-- Patty Lovera from Food and Water Watch

The Rotten Facts About Food Preservation

Foods which are highly nutritious mold and rot the most rapidly, because healthy nutrients are just as beneficial to bacteria and molds.  See this for yourself by making an organic vegetable drink, and leave the pulp out at room temperature for just two days.  Watch what happens.  You will see that it becomes so overgrown with white fuzzy mold that the pulp will appear to have transformed into cotton.

Try the same experiment with an irradiated fruit or vegetable (coming soon to a supermarket near you), or with processed foods.  You could try this with some McDonald’s fries, which are little more than salt and fillers.  They will not change in weeks, and people have reported the same findings with their hamburgers too.  Do you want to put something into your body that is scorned by fungus?  Toxic (and irradiated) foods simply do not rot.

Unfortunately, they also have a depleted (or nonexistent) nutritional value; shown by the fact that organisms cannot survive on them.  We have already determined that most of our modern illnesses are closely linked to nutritional deficiencies, so what will happen when all of our fruits and vegetables are irradiated, and therefore, lack all nutrition?  Our health will be impacted as if we were trying to survive on a diet of only corn.  What will remain of our society, and how can we possibly allow the nuclear industry to invade our kitchens?

Irradiation does not just nullify the nutritional value of items, but it can also make them harmful.  (Take note of this, microwave users.)  We know, for instance, that radiation produces profound chemical changes in meat.  It elevates levels of the carcinogen benzene, and creates new chemicals known as radiolytic compounds, which also have been recognized as carcinogens.  Radiation itself is the most potent of all cancer causing agents, likely because it produces these compounds in tissues.

Cold Pasteurization: Why You Should Avoid Commercial Mayonnaise

If being made with genetically engineered and chemically perverted soy oil were not already enough reason to avoid commercial mayonnaises, there is perhaps an even more important reason.  All commercial mayonnaises are cold pasteurized.  Cold pasteurization means that the food was saturated with radiation at the chemical plant to disinfect it.  Think radioactive whenever you see something has been cold pasteurized, and know that the food is laced with poisonous, cancer-inducing, radiolytic compounds, such as benzene.  Benzene formation is a normal and expected occurrence anytime proteins are exposed to high levels of radiation.

Most people already know that microwaving food is quite destructive nutritionally, and from a safety angle, but they do not know that the radiation of so-called cold pasteurization is many times worse than microwaved foods.  Therefore, it is prudent to pause for a moment to recite the long litany of issues again.  Mayonnaise is made primarily from genetically engineered soy oil, which is heavily processed, and known for severely disrupting hormones.  About that processing: it is critically important because soy is poisonous in its natural organic state (containing all natural insecticides), so there are never organic soy products for human consumption.  Furthermore, mayonnaise is made with hydrogenated oils, chemically engineered ingredients (too much to even go there), unnatural radiolytic compounds that are extremely toxic and cancer-inducing, such as benzene, and finally, the product is likely to be still radioactive at the time of sale.

All that commercial mayonnaise really needs is some wormwood, rat poison, and the blood from a virgin chicken to finish the recipe.  Corn dogs are a health food in comparison.  Since the toxins in mayonnaise are bound inside various fats, and since the human body protects itself by storing toxins inside of fat cells, then it is easy to figure out exactly what mayonnaise does to a person's body.

Ignorance Is Death

We cannot know what longterm effects irradiated food will have on the lives and health of those who place their trust into questionable governmental regulators to protect them, or the effects upon those who unwittingly consume these foods in cases where it is completely unlabeled.  In the cases where consumers are never given informed consent, how will we have accountability?  If we are not allowed to know which foods are irradiated, and which ones are not, then how can we report health problems that arise as a result of this involuntary experiment?  It is clear that the industry does not want us to be able to report problems, seek legal relief, eat healthily, or even know what we are eating.  Instead, we are all participants in a new double-blind study.  We do not know who eats from the control group, and who is eating irradiated foods.  Perhaps it will be more obvious when larger numbers of children are born without fingers, or with two heads (genetic mutations -- another well known consequence to radiation exposure).  At this rate, it is a very real possibility.

“The current permissible radiation dosage is about 200 million times greater than a chest X-ray.”

-- Samuel Epstein, M.D., Chairman of the Cancer prevention Coalition

 

 

Proponents of irradiation claim that it is safe because the exposure is brief.  At such high levels, it does not take long to kill the bacteria (and the nutritional value), but none of these things prove it to be safe.  The length of exposure is rather meaningless, when in actuality, it is the dosage that should be taken into account.  When medics give X-rays, they must wear protective clothing, because radiation at that level is recognized as dangerous.  Why then, is it claimed that it is safe to irradiate foods, which are to be taken internally, after a dosage of 200,000,000 times more?

One fallacy of this new-age science (the type practiced by the F.D.A.) is that something can be proven to be safe.  No test can prove that anything is safe.  Only the dangers of something can be proven, for it is impossible to test every possible combination of an item’s use for safety.  Tests can definitely prove dangers, and they have done so in the area of radiation.  Ironically, actual tests proving irradiation dangers have been ignored, and the scientists involved were expectantly demonized for threatening the official policies.  This behavior might be called politics, or it might be called business, but it certainly cannot ever be called science.

Under public pressure, the Food and Drug Administration (F.D.A.) has finally ruled that the public has the right to know, in some cases, when food is irradiated.  "Fresh" produce must be labeled if it is radioactive.  Nevertheless, the F.D.A. has made it clear that it supports irradiation, and is actively encouraging companies to use it.

Does the F.D.A. Regulate, or Is Its Job To Protect Industry From Us?

Take a second look at the F.D.A.’s label for irradiated foods (top of article).  It does not imply that a food has been zapped by gamma rays, or that it is nutrient depleted.  It does not reveal that an identical dose of radiation would instantly kill a horse.  Instead, the F.D.A. has produced an image of what appears to be a healthy plant naturally growing under the sun.  If no text accompanies it, then this symbol will easily be misinterpreted as meaning “organic”, which is likely their intent.  This demonstrates that the F.D.A. does not truly want citizens to have informed consent.  They merely want consumer safety groups (and people like us) to simply go away.

Most irradiated foods do not require labeling at all.  If irradiated ingredients are inside other foods, then the finished products do not have to be labeled.  For example, if irradiated carrots are inside of coleslaw, then it does not have to be labeled at all.  However, if those same carrots were sold separately, then they would have to bear the irradiation label.  Irradiated raw and frozen meats currently require the warning label, but the American Meat Institute (A.M.I.) is currently petitioning the U.S.D.A. to remove its regulations requiring such labeling.  They argue that because irradiation is used early in the production process that it somehow does not matter.  In actuality, it is our right to know what does not matter.

“Without labeling, consumers who want to avoid irradiated foods will be misled.  Without specific labeling, consumers who do choose irradiated foods will also be misled because the end product may not be irradiated, which may have other food safety implications.”

-- Dr. Urvashi Rangan

In reality, using irradiation early will remove any benefits that irradiation could offer, because there is a high chance for reinfection, and yet the food will still have all of the dangerous radioactive disadvantages.  The Consumers Union is campaigning against unlabeled radioactive meats; testifying that consumers have the right to choose if they eat irradiated foods or not.  Cooked meats are currently not permitted to be irradiated (such as hot dogs), and neither are organic foods.  There are natural alternatives to irradiation, but they are being ignored in lieu of supporting the nuclear industry.  For instance, prunes kill e. coli in beef, while a trace amount of cinnamon does the same thing in juices, according to studies from the early part of this decade.  Additionally, ginkgo biloba is deadly to listeria, the bacteria that caused the 1998 poisonings.  A trace amount of grape seed extract is toxic to practically every bacterial pathogen, yet it is as nontoxic to humans as it is tasteless.  The same is true for colloidal silver, which by the way, is documented to kill all single cell pathogens (i.e. everything).  Of course, salting and smoking have always been excellent for food preservation and taste enhancement.  There are also the techniques of flash freezing and vacuum sealing.  Instead, and for the past 20 years, the food industry has been fighting consumer interest groups over irradiation, and resisting any push for them to clean up their act.  Fortunately, the industry has so-far been too afraid of public outrage to make huge investments in food irradiation.  This is changing, however.

“After Sept. 11, in the States, people were suddenly very concerned with food safety and the food supply... That’s when food irradiation came up.”

-- Wendell Joyce

When people are afraid, many of them are willing to give up everything to feel safe again.  Whether that be their constitutional rights, their privacy, or their right to choose between what is good and bad for their health.  It is almost instinctual to try and rely on others whenever we are afraid, but these companies, and this government has been very undeserving of this trust.  In this case of irradiation, it is apparent that the events of 911 were exploited as a method of manipulating regulators into submitting to something that had been previously inconceivable.  The recent scares with spinach, tomatoes, jalapeños and peanuts will all be used to satisfy the same agenda.  Media sources have been aggressively magnifying the stories of food poisoning, to the point where everyone is afraid to eat fruits, vegetables, nuts, and almost anything except Doritos and cake.  All of this in the name of health safety -- no less.  E. coli found in spinach, during 2006, was first reported as being on "organic spinach", but it was soon revealed that organic spinach did not contain e. coli -- only the chemically grown spinach did.  Interestingly, the media then blacked-out the story.  These scare tactics have been constant, and they will continue until the public shows that it will not respond to these manipulative fear messages.  Undoubtedly, more food scares will be blown-up before we see irradiated “fresh produce" available at the average supermarket.

Showing the benefits of radiation exposure (left):  Children like this are being born in record numbers in Iraq and Afghanistan, due to depleted uranium ("armor piercing") shells and bullets used by the U.S. Military, despite the existence of non-radioactive alternatives.  The U.S. Government, perpetually pandering to the nuclear industry, knew that this would happen, and that it would continue happening until the end of time; but it chose to bombard those nations with radioactive munitions anyway.  U.S. military personnel are also having these same reproductive issues, and many, many more, which have been ignored by the Veteran's Administration.  Now, this same Government is working to help perverse nuclear industry executives to poison our foods too.

 

Related Articles

A New Method of Poisoning Us With Radiation: 'High Efficiency' Light Bulbs

Shielding Yourself From Radiation and Dangerous Radioactive Exposure From Cancer Patient Emissions

Granite Counter Tops Pose Health Risks

More Radiation Poisoning Coming Soon to a Hospital Near You

JAMA Admits that Chemo and Radiation are Likely to Cause Death

Radioactive Airport Body Scanners and Official Child Molestation Procedures

What They Are Hiding About Daniel Hauser's Forced Chemotherapy To Malign Alternative Medicine

Cancer Revisited: The Industry Suppressed Budwig Regimen or How To Cure Cancer With Cottage Cheese

God's Nutrition: From The Big Guy Himself

 

 

Comments (11)
  • Bob C  - Food Irradiation

    Thomas,
    I just discovered your website via Stumble, and am very impressed by your standards of truth and honesty. I have to call you, though on this article. I am a nuclear professional, and am therefore interested in this topic. While I am in total agreement about the dangers of food irradiation (to the general disagreement of my peers), due primarily to the destruction of all life in the food, the formation of free radicals, and the creation of unique chemicals, known as radiolytic products. However, your statement regarding irradiated food as being "radioactive" is shamefully un-researched. Nothing becomes radioactive by being exposed to gamma or x-ray no matter how intense the radiation field. Matter becomes radioactive only through neutron bombardment, and no food is ever irradiated in that manner. Also, food doesn't become radioactively contaminated by gamma irradiation, either. A simple way to explain this is, you can get a burn by being in the sun too long, but nothing gets on your skin from the sun (i.e., contaminated). Stated a little more crudely, you could smell manure all day long, and never get any on you. Hence, the radiation source material (e.g., Co-60) never gets directly on the food. Again, I don't disagree with your intent, but you need to check your facts a little more closely on this one.

  • C. Thomas Corriher (Managing Editor)
    avatar

    Thanks for dropping in Bob, but I am quite certain that you are wrong. To save us from a lengthy discussion of radiation and electromagnetic energy in general, which would be tedious for us (me at least), and one that would make all of our readers run away screaming, let me just give you an example to chew on.

    In England, cancer patients are routinely told to stay away from young children after "radiation therapy" because the patients emit radiation that is dangerous for quite some time afterward. This is something that you can verify at your leisure. This has been so suppressed in the U.S., in order to promote the "safety and benefits" of radiation by the nuclear industry, that you, a professional in this industry, does not even know about it. I can tell you that the English cancer patients and doctors know about it.

    My instincts tell me that you are a good man, Bob, and you certainly present yourself well. However, I want to tell you point blank that you work for some very evil people, in a very evil industry, and you had better be careful about believing them. It would do your soul good to find another profession; especially if your work is either nuclear "medicine" or nuclear weapons.

  • Bob C

    Thanks for posting my message, and for your prompt reply. Your reply, however, reinforces my conclusion on your un-learnedness regarding radiation and radioactive material. You declare in other articles that vegans are blinded by their "religion" such that they cannot see any other conclusion offered. Regarding this topic, I accuse you, sir, of the same.

    In regards to the English patients, yes being near someone after "nuclear therapy" could be dangerous. But, that is only because they have had a radioactive isotope material put inside their bodies. Hence, that material is emitting radiation from inside their bodies to anyone who is near. The patient has not become radioactive. It is the material inside them. Typically, in my profession, the concept of the difference between radiation and radioactive material is difficult for most to grasp. Please ponder my previous comments regarding this.

    Finally, my instincts tell me that you are a good man as well. However, I conclude that you are blinded by your no-nuke "religion". A chain saw can be beneficial if used properly, but can become very destructive in the wrong hands. Evil exists in practically everything, but it is misguided to then declare that all is evil.

    Incidentally, I am neither in medicine nor weapons. I have mostly been involved in environmental cleanup projects. And I might add that I did exercise some restraint in this reply, since, after all, you did insult my intelligence in yours.

  • C. Thomas Corriher (Managing Editor)
    avatar

    Sarah reviewed my last message with me, and we cannot see your intelligence being insulted anywhere. I'm sorry you feel that it was.

    All reporters are biased, and anyone who purports to be completely "fair and unbiased" is a greater liar than those who do not. Reporters are human, so despite even the best and most noble intentions, their objectivity evaporates, at least partially, as soon as pen hits paper. That's the price we pay for getting our news from other human beings. One thing that makes us different from most other news sources is that we are honest and above-board with our biases. It is an honesty and transparency thing that is sorely lacking nowadays. We consider it ethical journalism.

    I am aware that there are plenty of physicists who agree with you completely about the topic of pure energy radiation not being transferred, while plenty of non-physicists ("the ignorant") researchers agree with us. You would likely contend that this greatly reinforces your position because the more educated (on this topic) tend to agree with you. I contend that it actually weakens your position, because only those with a pro-nuclear agenda (those who profit from the industry) agree with you, and independent 3rd parties do not. Always follow the money trail if you are seeking truth.

    Radiation, even pure energy radiation, can indeed be transferred to objects that remain tainted with it. I believe that your blindness in this issue is due to the fact that you believe whatever you MUST believe to work in that industry. I realize that you will disagree, regardless of what I write, and regardless of whatever evidence I produce, because you HAVE to believe as you do. That is one reason why I will not waste too much time on this topic.

    Reference:

    http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/jrc/index.cfm?id=1410&obj_id=10350&dt_code=NWS〈=en

    http://www.organicconsumers.org/irrad/FDArebuttal.cfm

    History has repeatedly shown that the nuclear industry will labor to convince everyone that it is a useful industry, and that its "product" is harmless. They have been lying to us since the 1940's, and you can bet that the people at the top are lying to you now. They're still getting rich from making us sick, and it is despicable.

    There are billions of dollars at stake, so the challenge for us as journalists is to separate the propaganda from the reality. I feel that we were successful here.

  • Bob C

    I wrote in originally to correct your error regarding your definition of "radioactive". I plainly stated my agreement with your position on food irradiation. You have chosen to ignore that and turned this into a debate on the merits of nuclear, in general. I suspect this to be your deflection tactic to avoid admitting your error. Energy transfer does not mean becoming radioactive. Someone could hit a brick with a hammer. There is indeed a transfer of energy, and the brick is indeed damaged, but it will never turn the brick into a hammer. I am not discussing the pros or cons of nuclear, in general...just plain old physics. But you can't seem to separate the two. Bias is one thing...but stubbornness is another thing altogether. I'll say it again, when you said that irradiated food is "radioactive", you are just plain wrong. Anyone with reasonable knowledge on the subject would know that.

    http://www.mindfully.org/Food/Food-Last-Forever-1.htm
    http://www.mindfully.org/Food/Food-Last-Forever-2.htm

  • C. Thomas Corriher (Managing Editor)
    avatar

    That's it. Your arguments are just so intimidating that I am employing sneaky "deflection" tactics.

    It is equally important to remember that you cannot hit a brick with a hammer and cause it to get thyroid cancer either. As someone so well versed in physics, then I should not have to explain the difference between the brute force kinetic energy of momentum, and poisonous nuclear energy.

    Deflection tactics? Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.

  • Bob C

    Yes...and now you are invoking the ridicule tactic. :) This has been an enjoyable exchange. However, I think it has about run its course. Your readers can decide who is correct. Please check out the links I provided. I deliberately chose a non-pro-nuke source, so you couldn't accuse me of carrying water for the "enemy". But, alas, you probably won't read it. Incidentally, your argument about physicists agreeing with me, and non-physicists (the ignorant) agreeing with you, is quite comical. So....don't believe those who have decades of direct experience, and mostly agree with you, but instead, believe those who know little or nothing about it. That's really strange, if you ask me!

  • C. Thomas Corriher (Managing Editor)
    avatar

    I was not ridiculing you, I promise. I was just making a point through allegory, as you were; but it was in no way a personal attack against you. In fact, I want you to feel welcome here, for we get few commentators who are as thoughtful and articulate as you are. I believe that you believe everything that you have written, so I respect and honor that. If I believed that your intentions were questionable, then you would see what it is really like when I do attack. That can get really ugly, but you can see that for yourself elsewhere.

    I remember back to my martial arts training, and I remember the correct way to end. I give to you sir, a virtual bow, from one honorable combatant to another. May the truth win in the end.

  • Bob C

    Fair enough, Thomas. May Truth prevail.

  • WFC  - Thank you, Bob and Thomas

    I read this entire article with great interest, thank you for reporting this, Thomas.

    I read Bob's initial comment and thought immediately, "How chivalrous for this correction to not have been censored. This, my first visit to healthwyze, is a find. The reported errors get corrected, as I would expect in any 'authentic' search for facts." Thank you for sharing your expertise, Bob.

    The discussion that followed shed little further light on the issue of whether or not irradiated food is radioactive, but it was akin to an X-ray in revealing the personalities, values, and interpersonal style of each of you two gentlemen. Thank you, Thomas for not censoring this.

    I learned many things by reading this page in its entirety.
    Sincerely and best wishes to both,

    WFC

    May truth prevail.

  • Kathleen

    I really enjoyed this article and the debate. Ideally we should all have more control over our food. Sadly most don't give it much thought.

    I think everyone would benefit from having their own garden and root cellar. What a great way to get our vitamin D, fresh air, and exercise.

    Dr. Lendon Smith gave us a phrase to live by decades ago, “Eat foods that rot, but eat them before they do.”


Only members may write comments.

The book is available now. Learn more or preview it.

Newest Audio Show  

Episode 33

Advertisements  

The Cancer Report is the must see documentary from The Health Wyze Report. Watch it now! The DVD is available in our store.