what are the risks of nuclear radiation in increasing genetic variability and food preservation?
970677
Irradiated foods are safe.  They are not radioactive (at least not due to the irradiation process) any more than you are after exposure to x-rays (although THEY can be harmful).  The radiation kills bacteria in the food.  \n\nIf irradiation did increase genetic variability it would probably be good for the human race, because, due to advances in medicine, the race is stagnating (genetically, that is) because harmful mutations and deadly diseases no longer always limit life, so the propensity for such mutations and diseases is passed on by reproduction.
846423
It will take years of research before we know what dangers or ill effects genetically modified foods will have on us. But fear not research is being done ,its just to soon to tell.
665358
Yes, probably. The real problem is cosmic rays. They cannot be stopped or even slowed down, and can cause DNA damage. Until we can solve this problem, space travel will continue to be hazardous.
840810
A heavy radiation flux will kill bacteria. There is no actual reactor involved, just a highly radioactive source that has food pass by it.
284201
Irradiation\n\nhttp://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dbmd/diseaseinfo/foodirradiation.htm
367200
Increased risk of cancer\nrisk of giving birth to children with disabilities or deformations.
711676
http://www.burtonreport.com/InfForensic/HumanExperPlutonium.htm\n\n\nhttp://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/radiation/dir/mstreet/commeet/meet10/brief10/tab_i/br10i2j.txt
768486
Keep in mind, I'm not a nuclear Engineer or a nuclear specialist.  I haven't studied nuclear physics since college 10 years ago.\n\nRadiation in any form is dangerous.  It is just whether the benfits outweigh the potential ill side effects.\n\nRadiation is actually caused by the decay of a radiactive subtance.  Radiation takes three forms, alpha, beta, and gamma radiation.\n\nAlpha radiation consists of 2 protons and 2 neutrons.  Alpha particles are slow and can not penetrate much.  This type of radiation can be stopped by something as thin as a sheet of paper or clothing.\n\nBeta radiation is actually an electron.  While beta radiation penetrates more than alpha radiation, it is still weak.  It can be stopped by thin metals, such as a sheet of foil.\nGamma radiation is the radiation that is very deadly.  Gamma radiation is actually a wave and not a particle.  It can only be stopped by thick layers of dirt, concrete, or lead.\n\nDuring nuclear fallout, a person doesn’t become radioactive per se.  What happens is the dust and particles collected on their clothing emits radiation.  You may have heard of radiation suits.  Radiation suits do not stop radiation, rather their purpose is to prevent radioactive particles from becoming embedded in hair, skin, or clothing.  Once the person gets away from the contaminated area, they wash the suit, disrobe, and (my guess) run like hell.\n\nRadiation sickness is caused by an overdose of radiation.  The danger of radiation is that it kills the cells of any living thing that it strikes.  This can be beneficial in a medical setting like when a radiation beam is used to kill cancer cells in a patient.  However, when a person is exposed to uncontrolled radiation over a prolonged period of time, many of the cells in their body are killed.  Just like anything else, dead things begin to decay and rot.  Radiation sickness is essentially the body becoming poisoned and weak from the loss of cells and decaying cells in their body.\n\nWithout adequate protection during radiation fallout, radioactive particles become ingested, inhaled, and embedded on the skin.  \n\nI hope this helps a little
577424
nuclear energy is dangerous to the health, and people worry there is leakage, and there will be sometime in the future.
224153
TruthOrFiction.com has not been able to find any research that supports the fear that food can become contaminated with dioxins either from plastic wrap or plastic in microwave ovens.\n\nThis website does exhaustive research to learn the truth. You can read about what and how they they came to that conclusion here:  http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/d/dioxins.htm
452427
solar radiation - UV rays are damaging to the DNA of skin cells and can result in cancer
678624
The greatest threat of radioactivity to life as we know it is damage to the gene pool, the genetic make-up of all living species. Genetic damage from radiation exposure is cumulative over lifetimes and generations.\n\n     Some biomedical effects of radiation are well known. If the exposure is great enough, as it was for 200,000 people in Japan in 1945 and for the clean-up crew in Chernobyl, death can occur immediately or within days.\n\n     Even low-dose exposures are carcinogenic after extended exposure (Gofman 1990). The current generation, the one in utero, and all that follow may suffer cancers, immune system damage, leukemias, miscarriages, stillbirths, deformities, and fertility problems. While many of these health problems are on the rise, individuals cannot prove either increase in "background" radiation or specific exposure as the cause. Only epidemiological evidence is scientifically acceptable to impute cause. Perhaps the most extreme outcome over time would be simply the wholesale cessation of the ability to reproduce. Radiation is a known cause of sterility (Gofman 1981).\n\n     The quality of life of vast numbers of us may be affected by the increased burden of radioactivity we all bear. Many victims of radiation sickness do not show up in the statistics because the kind of symptoms experienced, while disabling, are not as significant as childhood leukemia, or stillbirths, or cancer, or birth defects. Nevertheless, lives of countless people have been affected by radiation exposure.\n\n     Beyond the physiological effects, the mental and emotional consequences of the trauma of exposure to invisible environmental contaminants in general, and radioactivity in particular, has been documented (Vyner 1988). One can only speculate about the spiritual consequences (Schell 1982; Lynch 1995).\n\n     "Background radiation" is a measurement of the accumulated radioactivity in the atmosphere from all sources combined: the sun, the earth, and all man-made explosions, leaks, accidents, purposeful ventings, and dumpings. The term, however, implies naturally occurring radiation is of no real concern. But before the Atomic Age there were no comprehensive measurements of naturally occurring radiation, so the use of this term obscures the reality that we already live in a contaminated world, and that radiation's effects are cumulative and irreversible.
31017
CONS:\nThe following are possible negative effects:\n-possibility of toxins in food\n-possibility of new pathogens\n- reduced nutritional value\n- introduction of human allergens\n- transfer of antibiotic resistance to humans\n- unexpected immune-system and genetic effects from the introduction of novel compounds\n-reduced crop genetic diversity\n-effects on beneficial organisms\n-antibiotic resistance\n-pesticide resistance\n-Gene flow to neighboring crops and to related wild species\n-farm management issues (buffer strips, etc)\n-crop yield drag\n-changes in chemical pesticide use\n-profitability\n-marketing and trade issues \n\n\nPROS:\n\nThere are two main reasons for most genetically engineered crops.They are planted either to 1) survive exposure to certain herbicides (called herbicide-tolerant crops) or 2) kill certain insect pests (called pesticidal or insecticidal crops). \n\nThese are some of the other pros:\n-higher yields\n-more uniform quality\n-better shelf life\n-better nutritional values\n-decrease soil erosion\n-more flexibility for farmers\n-safer pest control to applicators\n-reduction of harmful pesticides
470353
Pros: Alpha radiation sources can be used as power sources in things like pace makers and I think they are also used in smoke detectors. Also it can be used to kill cancer cells.\n\nCons: radiation can kill people or make them very ill. Can cause people to loose hair and become infertile.
220405
What you're working with here is trying to decide an acceptable risk. The complicating factor is that this scenario involves the government deciding what will be an unacceptable risk for all of the governed...\n\nFor instance, driving a car is associated with a certain risk of injury and death.  Driving it intoxicated greatly increases that risk.  As a society, we have declared that driving intoxicated (in many states, that includes more than just booze, by the way) has been declared an unacceptable risk; driving, however, has not been declared as generating an unacceptable risk.\n\nAs an aside, if you use reconstituted, dehydrated lemonade, it is highly probable that there is rat excement in it anyhow--and you're just not aware of it.  Pre-prepared foods, canned foods, etc. have all sorts of detritus in them that, if you knew about it and thought about it as you ate it, would absolutely ruin the pleasure of eating it.  If, however, you don't know about it, you don't care: it's only if you are aware that it matters.\n\nBy the way, hydrogen oxide is a harmful substance in large enough amounts...  It can kill; I've actually seen sufficiently large ingestions of it cause seizures, and in other cases cause mental changes; and it is also safe in smaller amounts.  Wiley's assumption is demonstrably wrong with hydrogen oxide--better known, by the way, as water...\n\nYou have to realize that the natural environment produces toxins and carcinogens.  The peel of the humble radish, for instance (which I have been known to consume in quite immoderate amounts) has been shown to contain three carcinogens.  (You can sell RADISHES, but if you peel the radish and try to sell the PEELS, you're in deep dutch. It's modified, and covered under the Delaney Amendment.)  I've lost count of the number of polycyclic carcinogens that have been identified in the surface of grilled foods.  The list is obnoxiously long.  The trouble is that the research often assumes that the dose-response function is roughly linear, that there is no thresh-hold effect.  Given the remarkable ability of the human body to chemically modify things that are ingested, there is reason to question the validity of the no-threshhold assumption, based on serious science.\n\nThe rat urine thing, by the way, is cute--but it is an appeal to emotion, not reason.  Public policy should be based on reason and science, as much as possible, not on clever appeals to emotion, at least in my opinion.
619707
Orchid Improvement through Mutation Induction \nby Gamma rays\n\nRadiation sensitivity of plants.\n\nEffect of Gamma rays and colchicine on number of branches of in- vitro derived Crossandra plants
760442
It's a lie, it's like cell phones causing gas stations to blow up. I work for a package delievery service and we ship optic mice, cell phones and what not all the time, and if something edmits radioactivity it's required to be labeled, even if it doesn't emit the radiation when it's turned off. the only thing you have in ur home that is slightly radioactive is ur smoke detectors.which are class 1, meaning as long as u dont eat them you'll be fine