Talk:Food irradiation

message: Food Processing Technology Principles and Practice - Book by P.J. Fellows
Irradiation for Quality Improvement, Microbial Safety and Phytosanitation of Fresh Produce - Book by Peter A. Follett and Rivka Barkai-Golan
Food Irradiation Research and Technology - Book by Xuetong Fan and Christopher H. Sommers
Irradiation of Food Commodities: Techniques, Applications, Detection, Legislation, Safety and Consumer Opinion - Book by Ioannis S. Arvanitoyannis
Journals - El Sevier, Journal of Food Quality, Trends in Food Science and Technology
Government Websites - USDA/FDA/HHS  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herna327 (talk • contribs) 05:45, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources for Revising and Improving Current Food Irradiation Article 

message: Hello, 
As part of a school assignment, Chapman's Masters in Food Science students will be editing and improving this article. The following are suggested changes to the current article:
* Plan on cleaning up the citations and shortening the overall length of the article, yet providing readers with more in-depth information of food irradiation
* Incorporate more food products and effects throughout the article
* Improve on the three most common forms of irradiation (gamma, UV, and e- beam)
* Include a known advantages and disadvantages sections/subsections
* The "History Timeline" located at the bottom of the article will be updated
* Additional relevant pictures will be added throughout 
* "Standards & regulation" section will be cleaned up and shortened, and a "Packaging" subsection will be added:
* An "Irradiation facilities and source transportation" section will be added
We appreciate comments, suggestions, and constructive criticism to continue improving the material in the article. Thank you!
Herna327 (talk) 01:01, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you in touch with the Wiki-Ed team, or is this just someone's idea? We're not opposed to changes but large scale rewrites of an article that has been subject to long-term problematic editing makes it hard for others to review the content changes. Guy (Help!) 06:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updating Food Irradiation Article 

message: This page is propaganda and maintained by the industry, I found out a long time ago.
Irradiated food means genetically modified food.  However the modifications
are random. 
   
 Your chemistry accepts irradiated atoms and molecules as normal because the outer shells of
the molecules and atoms determine the chemistry of the material.  On the other hand,
the mutations happen in the deeper layers of the electron shells, and so you are
taking in these ionized atoms for incorporation to your makeup .  You will be incorporating
particles with an overall electric charge on them, which is abnormal situation.
It is ionizing radiation.  What's the difference if you ionize your body
versus ionizing your food.  Recall that you are what you eat.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:7491:9300:4C29:964B:EB6A:422E (talk) 14:06, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Palomaris, back again? You know you where banned. Your focus on electron shells gave you away. Modifying a lower orbit of an electron shell will propagate to the outer layers very quickly and re balance it self. It won't just sit that way. A change that results in cell death cannot be considered a mutation, as no new organism is produced from this genetic code. Also mutations are caused by chemical changes in DNA/RNA. These can be catalyzed by changes in the orbits if an atom in a DNA/RNA molecule is hit. But a lower orbit change does not equal a mutation and a lower orbit change does not equal a chemical one.192.26.8.4 (talk) 18:31, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  SCHILL 

message: To summarize a common concern this article still reads as overly promotional. Because of this, when people read it, it does not inspire confidence. To quote a previous commenter. This is my fault. So 5 or so years later I am trying to take a stab at fixing it up. To give some context to how it got this way. This article used to be in two sections. One for, and one against. I combined these sections. This is also why there is a lot of "opponents say X is true and therefore irradiation is bad, but science says Y". This is why it reads as if it is a response in a debate against the opponents of irradiation.
In my last few edits I have taken everything scientific and general about what happens to the target material when food is irradiated out of the impacts section, and moved it into the second subsection (irradiation process) taking other pages about scientific and industrial processes as a template. Now all that is left in the impacts section are things that are meant to disprove misconceptions, and an very detailed section on irradiating leafy greens. I have made 4 or so attempted edits to rework this section, but have canceled all of them. I am so desperate that I am soliciting for help on a talk page that on Wikipedia. No one ever reads these things. Please help me brainstorm ideas to fix this.192.26.8.4 (talk) 14:26, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a state of the industry section to put content that was in public perceptions into a neutral context. This involved moving misconceptions back to long term impacts. The long term impacts section and Indirect effects still needs lot of help, even more so now.192.26.8.4 (talk) 20:05, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  HELP REQUESTED! Tone of Article Revisited 

message: This edit was justified because  there has been a substantial amount of original research (WP:OR) written into the article, with weak, unusable sources added. There are main reliable sources available, such as the FDA and CFIA, cited in the lede to affirm and make concise encyclopedic statements on food irradiation and its safety. Zefr (talk) 19:22, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research and unreliable sources