Skip to main content

Please Irradiate My Spinach

While we tend to focus here on commercial power, we shouldn't forget to mention other beneficial uses of nuclear science and technology. My colleague Todd Flowers recently wrote about food irradiation and the role it could play in preventing food-bourne illnesses related to bacteria like E.Coli in a letter-to-the-editor in the Richmond Times-Dispatch.

For more information about food irradiation visit this page by the American Nuclear Society, this page from the Centers for Disease Control, and this page from the the USDA Food Safety Research Information Office. Here are a couple of quotes from that last link:
Currently irradiation is the only known method to eliminate E. coli O157:H7 bacteria in raw meat. Irradiation also significantly reduces levels of other pathogenic organisms including Cyclospora, Listeria, Salmonella, Campylobacter and the protozoan parasite Toxoplasma gondi on raw products.
and
Extensive studies have been performed by the World Health Organization (WHO), Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), to determine the safety and quality of irradiated foods. It has been determined that there is no harm in the food itself or risk to the consumers, that the disease-causing germs are dramatically reduced or even possibly eliminated, and the food itself does not become radioactive.
The way I've explained it to people is that just like having an X-ray does not make a person radioactive, neither does food irradiation make what we eat radioactive.

Let's continue to spread the word!

Technorati tags: , , ,

Comments

Anonymous said…
Irradiation can help prevent disease, but it doesn't get to the root of the source. We need to prevent contamination from happening. E. coli and other bacteria come from feces. Irradiating fresh produce is only a solution if you want to make sure the poop on the vegetables you're eating is safe - not if you want to make sure there isn't poop on the vegetables in the first place.

Popular posts from this blog

Wednesday Update

From NEI’s Japan micro-site: NRC, Industry Concur on Many Post-Fukushima Actions Industry/Regulatory/Political Issues • There is a “great deal of alignment” between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the industry on initial steps to take at America’s nuclear energy facilities in response to the nuclear accident in Japan, Charles Pardee, the chief operating officer of Exelon Generation Co., said at an agency briefing today. The briefing gave stakeholders an opportunity to discuss staff recommendations for near-term actions the agency may take at U.S. facilities. PowerPoint slides from the meeting are on the NRC website. • The International Atomic Energy Agency board has approved a plan that calls for inspectors to evaluate reactor safety at nuclear energy facilities every three years. Governments may opt out of having their country’s facilities inspected. Also approved were plans to maintain a rapid response team of experts ready to assist facility operators recoverin...

Fluor Invests in NuScale

You know, it’s kind of sad that no one is willing to invest in nuclear energy anymore. Wait, what? NuScale Power celebrated the news of its company-saving $30 million investment from Fluor Corp. Thursday morning with a press conference in Washington, D.C. Fluor is a design, engineering and construction company involved with some 20 plants in the 70s and 80s, but it has not held interest in a nuclear energy company until now. Fluor, which has deep roots in the nuclear industry, is betting big on small-scale nuclear energy with its NuScale investment. "It's become a serious contender in the last decade or so," John Hopkins, [Fluor’s group president in charge of new ventures], said. And that brings us to NuScale, which had run into some dark days – maybe not as dark as, say, Solyndra, but dire enough : Earlier this year, the Securities Exchange Commission filed an action against NuScale's lead investor, The Michael Kenwood Group. The firm "misap...

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...