You do have a point on ionizing vs non-ionizing radiation. They are
totally different in their production and in their effects at levels
where harm to living tissue is concerned. The end RESULT, however is
essentially the same; death when applied in sufficient dosages.
I guess I did not come across with my ideas very well in that part of
my letter. The point I was attempting to make is that there is no
serious hazard to the general population, even to those living near a
irradiation treatment plant, from the radiation created by the process.
No more so than there is to the general population to harm from radio and
TV broadcast signal radiation. If one goes into a radio or TV
transmitter station antenna installation and climbs the tower, there is
danger. If one goes into a irradiation plant and goes into hazard areas,
there is danger.
As far as irradiation benefiting only the middlemen, I cannot agree
with that position. All it will do is replace the current practice of
spraying the food with chemicals. I would guess that a few large
chemical companies like Monsanto would be hurt though. They would lose a
large part of their market for pesticides.
--Dan in Sunny Puerto Rico--