I concede your arguments too, and you know I am not an opponent of nuclear energy, or even of irradiated food, for that matter. I'm just trying to make my usual point there are always multiple sides to every story, and just because you can identify some of your opponents as certified wackos does not necessarily mean they all are.

In the same issue of the paper my letter above appeared in, several other critics of food irradiation appeared. One claimed that food irradiation would make food radioactive or introduce poisonous free radicals into it (the first is obviously false, the second has never been proven). Another writer claimed it was all a conspiracy by the drug companies and the government to hold back holistic and alternative medicine and health food stores.

But there was another letter by a local businessman that had been following the irradiation company (I cannot reprint it for obvious copyright reasons, or send you a copy for my own personal confidentiality reasons). This gentlemen pointed out that the irradiation company had made repeated incorrect claims about its product, its investors and its profits. He showed evidence how this company had manipulated media reports and hoodwinked the press, misrepresented its assets and its sales, and made allegations about stock frauds and other irregularities. He also pointed out the company had paved its plans by enlisting millions of dollars from local investors who formed a ready made constituency ready to do anything to railroad the project through. Like I said, these are not just technical issues, they are social problems.