Random Study Thought

Just thought I would write about some thoughts I have while studying. Reading through chapter 4 of Nuclear Choices about the uses of radiation they briefly mention food irradiation. Still very disturbed that the FDA actually supports the use of food irradiation I decided to look at the numbers. Actually, the picture of the potato sitting out for 8 months prompted me to look at the numbers a little more closely. First, who owns a potato for 8 months? Certainly if you buy a potato I would hope you do so with the intention of eating it sometime within the next 8 months. That personal opinion aside the caption of the picture states the potato had been exposed to 20,000 rads of gamma radiation. After reviewing the chapter about Radioactivity 20,000 rads of gamma radiation seemed like a large number. A quick check reveals that exposure to 400 rems kills 50% of the exposed population. Checking the unit conversions between rads and rems shows that rads and rems are equal in measure if beta or gamma rays are involved. The potato had been exposed to 50 times the amount of radiation that kills humans in a high portion of the population, but does the FDA support these practices? Surprisingly, or maybe not so, the FDA endorses dosages of radiation to irradiate foods of up to 30,000 rems! For meat products the range is between 3,000-7,000 rem to kill disease causes organisms and prevent spoilage. Fresh fruits and vegtables are approved for 1,000 rems to maintain freshness and prevent spoilage. Conviently, the FDA presents its dosage units in kiloGrays (1 Gray = 100 rad/rem). Further reading in the book states that ingesting radioactive products is the worst type of contamination a human can be exposed to. So, I further fail to understand how a piece of fruit exposed to double the radiation that is safe for humans to be exposed to can be claimed by the FDA as a safe use of food irradiation. Is there something in the production process that decreases the radiation effects? Maybe the digestive system? I have no idea. Luckily many states have banned the process. I still do not understand how food irradiation can be safe for humans.

I wasn't sure if this link was in the last post, but here is the FDA article:

http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/1998/398_rad.html


A little further along in my studying I find the stance of those who oppose nuclear power to be incredibly misguided and uneducated. Three Mile Island symbolized the abrupt end to nuclear power in the United States. As nuclear power is again be pushed by the government as a more efficient energy source that will decrease reliance on fossil fuels, opponents talk about lack of safety controls in nuclear power plants and the dangers they pose to the surrounding community. Most of the time they point to the events of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, but rarely can they explain that TMI was caused by faulty valve, a minor problem made worse because of misinterpretation by the plant's operators, or that Chernobyl's disaster was the culmination of operator error, reactor design, and a poorly designed test. As Wolfson points out, these disasters have made reactors safer than they were thirty years ago. In order for new nuclear power plants are erected the public needs to be educated about the safety of nuclear power plants. Too much negative stigma exists within the public. Even though any negative thoughts about nuclear safety aren't particularly rational, they still exist. A wide spread public education program may help to mitigate uneasy feelings about nuclear power.