Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mhuxv.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!mhuxv!pdt From: pdt@mhuxv.UUCP (tyma) Newsgroups: net.med Subject: Re: irradiated food Message-ID: <1186@mhuxv.UUCP> Date: Wed, 22-Feb-84 14:17:55 EST Article-I.D.: mhuxv.1186 Posted: Wed Feb 22 14:17:55 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 23-Feb-84 05:32:54 EST Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill Lines: 56 Hoo boy! I hardly know where to begin my comments on a recent submission, which I summarize here: > Once inside, rods of Cobol-60 are raised from deep in the pool > and the material is moved around the room by a circular conveyer > belt, first near the ceiling, then near the floor. All scientific > evidence is that this procedure is harmless, and does not cause > the material to become radioactive in any way, if you can believe > this. Remember this is the same scientific community that told > mothers that DES, Thalidomide (sp?), etc. were harmless, until all > those babies were born deformed. I see nothing wrong with nuclear > harnessing for power and other things, but not in my food! It's > too soon to determine if it is indeed as safe as advertised. > Only time will tell... > The problem is that a few key facts have been misplaced or not provided at all. First of all, your Freudian slip is showing: Cobol is an acronym for a programming language; the element is *cobalt*. Second of all, if you choose not to believe that irradiation of food by Co-60 is safe, these are the facts with which you must deal: - all radiation (within *five* significant figures) from Cobalt 60 is gamma (99.870% at 1.173 MeV, 0.120% at 1.332 MeV, and 0.008% at 2.158 MeV). Therefore, no particles (alpha, beta, neutron, positron, etc.) are emitted. - if (and it's a mighty big if) the irradiated food is to become radioactive itself as a result of exposure to this emission, it must contain an element which has a significant "capture cross-section" (probability of absorption) for photons (light) at these energies and which assumes a long-lived unstable nuclear state when it absorbs this light.This situation is a far cry from that in the 1950's, when "miracle" technology was tested only for very obvious effects (e.g. does a rat die when I feed him this stuff?). Many fundamentally dangerous substances were unleashed upon an unsuspecting public by trusted but nonetheless ignorant members of the scientific community. Had we used 1980's standards back then, many of the mistakes referred to in the previous article could have been avoided. We have the means to characterize the elements in the food, to measure their radiation-absorption cross sections, and most of all to measure the radioactivity of the irradiated food. The test for side effects is *so* simple here--use a Geiger or proportional counter to see if the food is radioactive! It is as unlike the situation with chemicals of subtle toxicity as night is to day. I'm not going take these scientists at their word just because they are "experts"-- nor am I going to result to sensationalism and fear just because the word "radiation" was used. I'm going to THINK about what the word means and how it might affect me before I resort to hand-wringing. It's too da*n bad that discussions about toxicity and radiation tend to generate more heat than light.