Here is another interesting tid-bit from the web
FOOD IRRADIATION
I know a little about this hyar radiation business from the old days
when I used to play with nucular booms fer a livin.
Radiation comes in different types.ÿ What is commonly referred to as
radiation, is nuclear or ionizing radiation, as distinct from
electromagnetic radiation.
The ability of ionizing radiation to kill lifeforms or damage cells is
proportional to it's ionizing potential.ÿ In nuclear weapons we dealt
with four types of ionizing radiation, alpha, beta, gamma, and neutron.
Of these, alpha radiation has a travel distance through the atmosphere
of about 4 to 9 centimeters and is easily stopped by cloth or paper.ÿ It
is massive and slow.ÿ It's primary hazard is if an alpha source is
ingested into the body.ÿ Alpha sources tend to move through the blood
stream and collect in the bone marrow, where they continue emitting
alpha radiation, bombarding and killing the cells.ÿ This produces
leukemia, one of the most common longlasting forms of radiation
sickness.
Beta radiation is less massive than alpha and has a longer range, I am
not sure about this, but if memory serves between 10 and 20 feat in the
atmosphere.ÿ Not especially dangerous.
Gamma radiation is not very massive or ionizing and has a virtually
unlimited range and is difficult to stop.ÿ Requiring what is normally
referred to or thought of as radiation shielding, lead sheets, heavy
water tanks, etc.
Neutron radiation is virtually massless, fast and hard to stop.ÿ It
takes a lot of gamma or neutron radiation to hurt you, but they are hard
to stop.
The radiation discussed in the food irradiation news segments is gamma.
In order to kill bacteria with gamma radiation, you will have to hit it
with enough to ionize some of the food atoms.ÿ Ionizing atoms makes them
radioactive in some cases.ÿ This will create some alpha radiation
sources in the food.
Now, there are radiation sources all around us.ÿ A california beach girl
gets more ionizing radiation on the beach, than I regularly received
underwater on a nuclear submarine working in the nuclear weapons field.
The sun is a source of ionizing radiation.ÿ It ionizes seawater to
produce tritium which is a source of ionizing radiation.ÿ Between these
two, the beach is a fairly radioactive place.ÿ Underwater sunlight is
gone and tritium concentrations are lower, so if you don't study next to
nuclear warheads for the peace and quiet, (a friend of mine did once),
you don't get that much radiation.
The question is will using gamma radiation to sterilize meat increase
our exposure to ionizing radiation enough to be hazardous.ÿ If it does,
is the safety from food borne infectants, worth the additional risk from
radiation.ÿ Third, does irradiating meats actually answer the problem of
food contaminants.
The answer to a is yes.ÿ In order to kill bacteria, you have to use
enough power to knock atoms around and will produce some alpha sources.
In a country of 260 million people, taking irradiated food internally,
where potential alpha sources will be carried to the bone marrow, cases
of leukemia will be produced.ÿ How many, I don't know.ÿ Taking anything
exposed to radiation internally is the most dangerous possible form of
exposure.
I don't know the answer to two, because it depends on the magnitude of
risk of the answer to 1, balanced against the magnitude of risk of two,
and I do not have exact figures for either.
The answer to three is probably not.ÿ Irradiating foods answers only
food contamination caused by bacteria, and possibly some larger
viruses.ÿ It does not answer problems caused by chemical contamination,
nor does it deal with smaller viruses, or the proteins, prions, which
probably cause mad cow disease.
So, is industry touting irriadiating foods as a cureall for food health
problems?ÿ Your opinion of the news coverage.ÿ Should irradiating foods
be used as a partial measure for bacterial infections, and regulation
followed for the other problems with food contamination?
Or, what?ÿ Opinions requested.
RPatt wrote:
> For God's sake, anything that might cause leukemia in a human or
> animal should not be acceptable no matter how small the percentage
> of users affected!ÿÿ My husband died of leukemia two and one-half
> years after being diagnosed and that diagnosis came over a year
> after constantly feeling ill.ÿ It is not a good way to go, not for
> the patient and not for the family and friends, NO NO NO NO!
> rp
> ----------
>
Please accept my deepest sympathies and condolences.ÿ I did not mean to
seem harsh, ruthless, or unfeeling.ÿ Based upon my slightly better than
average laymans knowledge of this subject, I have little room for doubt
that taking irradiated foods internally over a period of several years
will have widespread health hazards possibly as great as those of second
hand smoke, causing an increase in blood and bone cancers.ÿ On the other
hand I could, possibly, be mistaken.
If, however, the choice were, 5 children a year dying of food poisoning,
or 1 person a year dying of leukemia or other food irradiation related
diseases, some people might see a real choice there.
Of course, you have to eat, you don't have to smoke, and bacterial food
poisoning can be safeguarded against by intelligent food preparation,
and possible health hazards from food irradiation cannot, if it is
adopted as a standard means of safeguarding foods.
This issue is not, entirely, clearcut.ÿ ALthough, I basically agree with
you that it is probably not a good idea.
I apologize again, and again offer my condolences.
RPatt wrote:
> No, I apologize, you just pushed the right button and I
> blew...purely emotional response.ÿ And, for what it's worth, it
> surprised me since it has been eight years.ÿ I guess some buttons
> stay active a long time.ÿ Sorry.ÿ As a matter of cold hard fact, I,
> too, probably support the choice of 1:5.ÿ Although, I would ask that
> other solutions be researched, which I am sure they are??
> ----------
>
Well, I think it is a cost thing.ÿ The president is pushing for better
food inspection and tougher criteria, industry responded with
irradiation.ÿ Probably a cheap fix solution.
Food irradiation was first suggested in the fifties.ÿ Part of the
history of the nuclear age when atomic was used to advertise
everything.ÿ I do not know if the standards under which it was tested
and approved have been updated to reflect more recent understandings of
nuclear radiation.ÿ I am not satisfied with the level of debate I see on
television.
I have another objection to it's widespread use.ÿ Bacteria adapt.ÿ The
irradiation method does not kill all the bacteria on the food.ÿ Those
left are likely to be the radiation resistant ones.ÿ In five or six
years, we may be swamped with new radiation resistant strains of food
poisoning bacteria.ÿ In which case, this method of sterilization may
prove useless for sterilizing high security medical facilities, etc.
The food industry has already contributed to the problem of drug
resistant bacteria by injecting cattle and other food animals that are
not sick with antibiotics because they grow faster that way.ÿ This has
given bacteria a huge leg up on adapting to our antibacterial drugs.
Now, if you watch tv, you can see this problem being covered and people
being asked to not use these drugs unless absolutely necessary.ÿ Won't
do much good if every cow in the world continues to get a small dose
daily for weight gain purposes.
If we misuse irradiation for food sterilization, it may become useless
for medical sterilization in a few years.
You add to this the fact that it does not address chemical, viral, or
prions (mad cow disease) at all and, all in all, it looks like a weak
stopgap solution to a serious problem.ÿ
Regards
Sri. |
