Food Irradiation

Radiation is broadly defined as energy moving through space in invisible waves. Radiant energy has differing wavelengths and degrees of power. Light, infrared heat, and microwaves are forms of radiant energy. So are the waves that bring radio and television broadcasts into our homes. Broiling and toasting use low-level radiant energy to cook food.
The radiation of interest in food preservation is ionizing radiation, also known as irradia-tion. These shorter wavelengths are capable of damaging microorganisms such as those that contaminate food or cause food spoilage and deterioration.
That capability, plus the fact that much of our food supply is lost due to spoilage and insects each year is why scientists have been experimenting with irradiation as a method of food preservation since 1950. They have found irradiation to be a controlled and very predictable process.

Food Irradiation

A lot of science backs this as a good idea.

So would you trust and/or prefer food to be persevered for you to consume this way? Whether yes or no, could you please explain why along with this answer whether or not it violates your personal religious believes if any and why.

Please reflect your thoughts in the pole

Thanks in advance.

I have no issue with preservation by irradiation. I think we should feel compelled to take measures to preserve food, along with others, to reduce waste and thus make the food industry more efficient.

aslong as my fridge is still working why would i select an option that seems risky,
i know ice can keep things fresh for millions of years without side effects yet i have not seen a single case where something is preserved longer then 60 years by radiation

3.14 said:

aslong as my fridge is still working why would i select an option that seems risky,
i know ice can keep things fresh for millions of years without side effects yet i have not seen a single case where something is preserved longer then 60 years by radiation

Click to expand...

Why would you cook food? Heat is a form of radiation.

yes but as ice heat has proven itself to be "save"
would you rather use something you know works fine or something wich does the same thing but where you do not know the full extend of its effects

1+1=2 or x+x=2

Food irradiation kills bacteria on the surface. The risk is that the good along with the bad bacteria is killed so extra care must be taken to ensure that meat is kept clean after irradiation.

3.14 said:

yes but as ice heat has proven itself to be "save"
would you rather use something you know works fine or something wich does the same thing but where you do not know the full extend of its effects

1+1=2 or x+x=2

Click to expand...

Actually, frying and other forms of heat processing can produce a large number of cancerogenes. People just assosiate anything involving "radiation" with radioactivity - which is incorrect. But any type of food processing is a calculated risk, it's never 1+1.

ye thats why i put it between ""
its the same reason people are more afraid of flying then driving while flying causes much less deaths

ps
i don't associate it with radioactivity , but just because its not radioactive doesn't mean it doesn't affect us

3.14 said:

ye thats why i put it between ""
its the same reason people are more afraid of flying then driving while flying causes much less deaths

ps
i don't associate it with radioactivity , but just because its not radioactive doesn't mean it doesn't affect us

Click to expand...

Yeah, it's pretty much the same thing. It's a real problem, how we seem unable to shake this "flaw", I mean you can show a person the data, but that's far from getting rid of their "fear".

I was once in a rather turbulent conversation with someone who was convinced (after reading a badly written newspaper article) that electromagnetic radiation was killing us all. He was quite shocked when I explained that light was a form of electromagnetic radiation and that we could not survive without it. What? Light is radiation? That can't be!

then ask them to draw a sun and ask them why they are drawing line's out of it

I see irradiation with gamma radiation from cobalt-60 (halflife 5.3yrs) as a sensible and effective preservative process that reduces the use of chemical preservatives and carbon footprint. I am therefore in favor of it.

I would point out on the negative side that it is ionising radiation and far more effective than good old UV at producing active intermediaries, which included free radicals and reactive carbonyl species. However, when applied to fresh produce which usually contains abundant antioxidants, these free radicals are reduced to safe state in a very short time. Some times fruit gets some discoloration bit like sunburn I guess.

The other possible negative is the use of Cobalt 60 (or other Gamma source), although it has a relatively short half life and once fabricated into metal rods is generally easily securely contained, however you would not want it in the food chain through an accident (extremely unlikely), as Cobalt is similar to calcium and deposits in the bone where it can irradiate local tissue causing adverse effects eg leukemia.

Cheers