Mail Irradiation - Anti Response

["Michael Stabin" <michael.g.stabin@vanderbilt.edu>]

Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 16:55:24 -0500

From: joseph.greco@kodak.com

Subject: Mail Irradiation - Anti Response



For your reading (dis)pleasure.  The following quote sums it up:



"I'd rather take my chance [with anthrax]," she admits, "than the

government

take these measures without full disclosure."



J. M. Greco

joseph.greco@kodak.com



An X-Rayed X-mas: Should the USPS Irradiate Your Mail?



J.A. Savage, AlterNet

November 5,

2001-------------------------------------------------------------------



Imagine if the fruitcake Aunt Emma sends you every year is, in 2001,

subjected not just to auntie's stove, but to an oven the size of a house

that zaps the poor loaf at 25 kiloGrays, delivering the radioactive

equivalent of 825 million chest X-rays to the X-mas cake. And you thought

it

tasted funky last year.



In response to the current anthrax-in-the-mail scare, the federal

government

has bought eight such irradiation devices, with an option for 12 more, for

the U.S. Postal Service (USPS). At $5 million per device, they are possibly

the USPS's most expensive attempt to quiet public fears about bioterrorism.

But will the devices actually make the public safer? Or will irradiating

our

letters, bills, catalogs, mail-order do-dads and holiday presents have

unintended health and environmental consequences, either in the long or

short term?



Unfortunately, the government isn't answering those question, or hardly any

questions at all, about mail irradiation. Unable to get such information,

consumer advocates and activists who cut their teeth struggling against

irradiated foods have filed a number of public information requests. On

Nov.

1, Public Citizen filed a Freedom of Information Act request asking for

copies of scientific studies used by the USPS to prove that irradiation

technology kills anthrax spores. The Nuclear Information and Research

Service (NIRS), also sent a formal letter to the USPS on Nov. 2, asking for

full disclosure on mail irradiation.



Among their concerns, according to NIRS Project Coordinator Cindy Folkers,

are what might happen if the irradiation process isn't fully effective. "If

spores are not destroyed with irradiation, mutation is risked," their Nov.

2

letter pointed out. As Folkers asks, "Might you end up with something worse

if you irradiate anthrax?"



In a testimony to Congress at the end of October, USPS Vice President Tom

Day referred to an armed forces microbiology study to support his claim

that

this irradiation technology kills anthrax spores, according to Wenonah

Hauter, director of Public Citizen's energy project, who was at the

hearing.

But Hauter said the study was neither peer-reviewed in the scientific

community nor published. "I just want to know how much radiation" will be

used, she added.



In Hauter's experience with food irradiation, a process similar to mail

irradiation, objects are bombarded with about 7 kiloGrays -- the equivalent

of 233 million chest X-rays. She believes the USPS machines, which use a

slightly different "e-beam" technology, would deliver 25 kiloGrays. Even at

that high level of irradiation, Hauter and Folkers question the devices'

efficacy for killing anthrax spores.



"There is not very much research out there," said Hauter, and what there

is,

she says, does not address the e-beam technology. What research Folkers

found indicated there is scientific evidence that water must be present to

have irradiation kill spores. But, she said, spores contain only 15 percent

to 20 percent water, while normal cells contain about 70 percent water.

"Radiation kills by breaking down water," she said. Hauter also claims that

e-beams only penetrate 1.5 inches through a package, so thick materials

with

spores on the bottom would not be sterilized, even if the technology does

work.



Titan Scan, the military contractor that is selling the e-beam units to the

USPS, did not return numerous calls for comment. Its major competitor,

Belgium-based IBA, would not remark on whether it was negotiating with the

U.S. government over selling its irradiation units. IBA did announce,

however, on Oct. 23, that its e-beam technology "can kill anthrax spores."



The American Postal Workers Union severely limited media interviews last

week, so there's no official word on workers' choice between the dangers of

anthrax inhalation or potential dangers from ionizing radiation. In the

current climate of anthrax fears, it's likely that postal workers would

choose the latter risk. However, if anyone may suffer from irradiation

devices, it would be USPS employees.



Most of the bad history with irradiation devices, including fatalities,

have

involved a technology that uses gamma rays as the source of irradiation,

not

the e-beam technology pursued by the USPS. But there are two instances of

workers in e-beam food irradiation facilities losing extremities in the

1990s, according to Public Citizen, and one instance in which two cancer

patients were killed when an e-beam irradiator used in cancer therapy

malfunctioned.



What might prove more hazardous to workers is the ozone given off by the

electron beam. "The long-term effect on lungs can be deadly," noted Hauter,

who added that the devices must have plenty of fresh air to minimize

exposure.



Like the fruitcake initially in question, ionizing radiation may alter more

than its intended target -- if it's going to try to kill a tough little

anthrax spore, it's going to have some effects on everything else it passes

through. NIRS, in its request for information from USPS, asked for details

on damage to film, computer equipment, magnetic media, scientific research

materials and blood. Public Citizen, in its Freedom of Information Act

request, added questions of e-beam's effect on pharmaceuticals, eyeglasses

and credit cards.



For certain, irradiation would make it impossible to ship certain products

through the USPS. Food items would have to forfeit any "organic" labels

after being zapped, which could be a major blow to the organic foods

market.

It is unlikely that seeds would be able to germinate after being passed

through an e-beam. And in its literature, Titan admits to color changes in

plastics as well as embrittlement. IBA admits there are side effects to

mail, but deems them "limited" and gives no details.



No one wants to be the target -- intended or unintended -- of biological

warfare. But in its hurry to protect the postal system, the government may

not be adequately addressing public concerns in the matter. Folkers, for

one, would rather have her questions answered than finding out 20 years

from

now about deadly long-term consequences of irradiated mail -- and she works

in Washington, D.C.



"I'd rather take my chance [with anthrax]," she admits, "than the

government

take these measures without full disclosure."



J.A. Savage is a senior correspondent for California Energy Markets

newsletter.





************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.