Please use references when adding text to the food irradiation article. Unreferenced text will be deleted. Also, don't copy and paste material directly from www.organicconsumers.org/irrad/irradfact.rtf without quoting the source; otherwise the addition is plagiarism. Binksternet (talk) 14:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as those in Food irradiation, but we regretfully cannot accept original research. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thanks for your efforts, and happy editing! Binksternet (talk) 14:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Food irradiation. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Note that sourced, encyclopedic, non-plagiarized material will better serve your purpose. Please consider summarizing the block of text you've been adding and providing sources for it. Binksternet (talk) 19:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3RR at Food irradiation, per a report at WP:AN/3RR. Your willingness to contribute as a normal Wikipedia editor is not clear. If your whole purpose for being here is to promote your personal cause, maybe you should rethink your participation. We expect people to put the values of the encyclopedia first. EdJohnston (talk) 18:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Danger of Free radicals
After a long absence, it is found the page about food irradiation is as silly as ever. My comments on the main page were of course removed immediately. There is some mention of changed food chemistry after irradiation. My comment was that the fact that food chemistry is NOT altered IS the main danger. It is well known that the chemistry of atoms and molecules is determined by the outermost electron shell, whereas irradiation will alter the inner electron shells, enabling uptake of chemically normal, but perturbed, atoms or molecules into the body chemistry. Palomaris (talk) 05:58, 26 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Palomaris (talk • contribs) 05:18, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have included the comments by Palomaris to demonstrate it is clearly vandalism, and to allow others to dispute his claims. I have also changed the heading of this section to be more constructive and less insulting. These perturbed atoms are called free radicals (there is a section for them) and it is proven that after the molecules are excited they can bond in different ways then they would be able to without being excited. In other words the ionisation acts as a catalyst. BTW Dieter was a published researcher and author on the topic. His word came from authority. It is behavior like yours that cost us his help.
(Palomaris here, vandalizing this ridiculous page again. It is well known that irradiation does not change the food molecular chemistry, but that fact is the insidious fault with irradiation. The ionized molecules behave chemically as normal, but are abnormal because their inner electron structure has been ionized, which means they behave differently in the metabolism other than chemically. They are accepted in the chemistry but they are not normal. FYI please be aware that ionization means changing the electronic structure of atoms below the outer electron shell. The outer shell determines the chemistry. Please prove that wrong if you can. LOL, this page is more a joke than ever after being away from it for a long time. LOL LOL. Hey Dieter, are you stil there? LOL)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Food irradiation has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.
ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Food irradiation was changed by Palomaris(u)(t) ANN scored at 0.955059 on 2015-10-26T04:38:20+00:00 .
If this behavior continues, you are likely to be indefinitely blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 01:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sock Puppetry on Food irradiation talk page
Below is the referenced sock puppetry, and included is a link to it.
[1]
== SCHILL ==
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)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Food irradiation. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Note that sourced, encyclopedic, non-plagiarized material will better serve your purpose. Please consider summarizing the block of text you've been adding and providing sources for it. Binksternet (talk) 19:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
