Well, I'm not sure how to feel about this USA Today business. While I applaud the enthusiasm of those on the thread who left their comments about OZON (and ozone), I felt sort of like the person who left this comment...
________________
Captn (West)
Hold on folks. We've got a bunch of stock promoters pushing ozon stock. Please don't allow that to skew the view of the value of ozone for food sanitation. There are several companies out there that really are doing something in ozone food sanitation besides planning, talking and hawking stock. And Bill (Ames, IA) needs some education about ozone, maybe irradiation as well.
________________
While the USA Today survey may have been a great forum for promoting ozone, it is not a good place to promote OZON. I think any reasoning person would tend to discount arguments put forth by people who clearly have another agenda behind their argument, in this case promoting a stock. Although I believe in ozone and OZON, some of the comments made me feel the same way I would have if someone wrote "Irradiation is safe and economical. Check out the stock VIFL, they've got the irradiation solution!" In other words, I look at it and say, "Yeah...I believe you."
I also think (as long as I'm up on my soapbox) that folks should know a little more about what they're talking about when trying to argue their case, or they end up shooting themselves in the foot.
A couple of posts mentioned that ozone was "non-chemical". Well, it's as much a chemical as chlorine, or water for that matter. If anything, irradiation would be the "non-chemical" treatment because (at least for food applications) it's using energy to kill pathogens.
Other posts called ozone the "natural" way to clean meat. Although ozone occurs in nature, calling cleaning meat with ozone "natural" is like calling a tanning bed natural because UV rays come from the sun. Using ozone is environmentally sound because it breaks down readily into harmless byproducts, but it's not really "natural".
And on the subject of harmless, while many of us here may not want to admit it, ozone is a toxic gas. Don't kid yourself, or try to kid others, into thinking it is benign. It is a serious respiratory irritant when inhaled in high concentrations. Fortunately, the amounts workers would be exposed to is low enough to not be a threat, and should any mechanical problems create higher concentrations, the obvious odor of ozone would alert people to its buildup before concentrations became dangerous.
Also, be careful throwing around statistics like "ozone is 3000 times more effective than chlorine." When I read things like that, it reminds me of the saying, "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics." What does a statistic like that mean? That given the same concentration, ozone will kill 3000 times as many bacteria as chlorine? Or that in 1 second ozone will kill the same number of bacteria as chlorine does in 3000 seconds? Or that to achieve the same level of decontamination, ozone costs 1/3000th as much as chlorine? Numbers like that sound impressive but they don't really tell you much. People just tend to react to the size of the number rather than the substance of the statistic.
One last point, and it's one most here will probably disagree with. Irradiation is a highly emotional and highly misunderstood issue. I honestly don't believe irradiated food poses any danger. (not to be confused with the source of radiation used in the plant) People have so many misconceptions about radiation, energy, matter, and most scientific concepts in general (including me). How many people know the difference between alpha particles and gamma radiation? And how many people realize that their microwave ovens use radiation to heat their food? I think the real issues precluding irradiation's dominance in the market will be (in order of importance meat plants will place on them) higher costs, slight changes in taste of food, and worker safety. So if you want to argue against the irradiation industry, don't make statements about hamburgers glowing in the dark. Use arguments with substance.
I believe ozone will win out in the food industry, not because it is a magic bullet, and not because other methods can't work, but because ozone provides the most efficient and least hazardous solution for the dollar.
Ok, I'm off my soapbox and flame shields are to maximum!
regards,
Mike |
