RE: Re[2]: Irradiated milk to be available in Feb 2000 -Reply

["Neil, David M" <neildm@id.doe.gov>]

On Wednesday, November 10, 1999 6:00 AM, Bradshaw, Keith
[SMTP:Keith.Bradshaw@nnc.co.uk] wrote:
> 	Why does the world need it?  Last figures I saw there was a world
> excess food calories production.  Aren't 25% of the US population now
> clinically obese (with Europe close behind)?  Don't both the EC and the US
> intentionally destroy food? 
Usually because it's 'tainted', suspect, or over an arbitrary date. What
would an improved sterilization method do to that amount?

>Who gets the benefits
The consumer

>and who gets the risks?
The Neo-Luddites who avoid the new methods because they're new.

> There are starving people in the world because of politics and economics,
> not scientific reasons.  Irradiating food won't help those.
> 
Actually, that's PRECISELY why it would help.  The problem is distribution.
The U.S. has an overproduction of milk.  Can we send it to Ethiopia?  No, if
it lasted the shipping, the people who need it most don't have the
refrigeration to keep more than they can consume on the spot.  And if it's
made into cheese, the same arguments apply at a slightly slower rate. Same
for meat.
 
> 	No, I want irradiated foods clearly labelled 
Is your spell checker out of whack?   "labeled"

>as such.  And
> preferably banned, except in special cases such as spices where the
benefits
> may outweigh the risks. 
That's all cases. And what about medical supplies - or did you think that
bandage you used the last time you had a cut had been autoclaved in the
paper wrapper?

> I do not want to increase my intake of free radical
> precursors without knowing about it. 
There's a technical term for "free radical precursors".  They're called
molecules.  Speaking of free radicals, in an aqueous environment (like meat
or milk) they react and vanish in moments. In a dry environment, such as the
spices you endorsed, they do not react nearly as fast.  So which would put
more into your body? ...

On that same issue, I presume you must be devoting a lot of time to stamping
out barbecues, gas stoves for cooking, and Girl Guides roasting weenies on a
stick over the campfire; all of which impart much greater concentrations of
free radicals than irradiation (by whatever name) ever did.

> I do not want supermarkets to get away
> with selling me old food at the same inflated price as fresh food.
> 
Are you under the misconception that the meat in the butcher's case is
rushed straight from the slaughterhouse to the store?  Carcasses are 'hung'
for a substantial length of time to allow the cellular enzymes to tenderize
the tissue.  Truly fresh meat is rather tough.

 > 	In the UK, I believe they were going to call it PICOWAVED, i.e.
> microwaved but at shorter wavelength!
> 
An apt analogy!

Thank you very much for the amusing post.

Please understand that I was not trying to make a fool of you. 
I would never presume to improve on the job the Almighty already did.

Dave Neil
neildm@id.doe.gov
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html