4 ms·

Why not just sterilize it with gamma radiation? A WHO link I found claims that high-dose irradiation (>10,000 grays) is substantially safe and will sterilize f

by uvdiv 16y ago

Why not just sterilize it with gamma radiation? A WHO link I found claims that high-dose irradiation (>10,000 grays) is substantially safe and will sterilize food, but Wikipedia says this is banned in the US except for hospitals and NASA: http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/fs_management/irradiation/en/ http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/fs_management/irr... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_irradiation#High_dose_applications_.28above_10_kGy.29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_irradiation#High_dose_appl...

derleth 16y ago
> Why not just sterilize it with gamma radiation? Look at all the unrestrained horror and apocalyptic glee surrounding Fukushima and answer that question for yourself. I know it isn't the same thing, or even the same kind of thing. You know that as well. However, convincing the masses of that will be the work of at least a generation, and, even if it is widely accepted, there will always be people who will be opposed to it for the simple reason "NUCLEAR SCARY!" and nothing else.
yuhong 16y ago
Or just abandon factory farming and stop animals from being treated as production units.
- bryanh 16y ago
  Sorry, but I have a bone to pick with people spouting this type of blanket rhetoric. Animals are treated as units of production in developed countries because this is what is required to provide sustenance at a scale that makes it economically feasible for hundreds of millions of people to eat better than ever before in the history of humanity. [1] Seriously, how many times must we start over every time someone watches Food Inc.? [1] http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/CPIFoodAndExpenditures/Data/Expenditures_tables/table7.htm http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/CPIFoodAndExpenditures/Data...
  - yuhong 16y ago
    Treating the animals better would still be better than irradiation.
    - bryanh 16y ago
      No one but you is comparing the two. * One is a moral judgement: Should we subjectively mistreat animals in order for humans to be healthy and prosper? * The other is a scientific question: Is irradiation a safe and effective food sanitizing method? Guess which one has dozens and dozens of studies to back it up? OP posted a few links, but try the CDC's take on it: http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol7no3_supp/tauxe.htm http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol7no3_supp/tauxe.htm
  - jackowayed 16y ago
    The average American would probably eat a lot better if (s)he ate half as much meat. And cutting meat consumption would allow even more people in the world to eat well. And your link is only moderately related. Yes, we're spending less on food. Yes, we'd have to spend more on food to eat the same exact diet without factory farming animals. But it doesn't make any claim that we are eating better than ever before in the history of humanity.
  - szany 16y ago
    Required? http://www.ted.com/talks/mark_bittman_on_what_s_wrong_with_what_we_eat.html http://www.ted.com/talks/mark_bittman_on_what_s_wrong_with_w...
RK 16y ago
Probably not enough cobalt-60 to do that on the necessary scale and accelerators probably can't give you the dose rates necessary for 10kGy x-ray irradiation.

by uvdiv 16y ago

derleth 16y ago

> Why not just sterilize it with gamma radiation? Look at all the unrestrained horror and apocalyptic glee surrounding Fukushima and answer that question for yourself. I know it isn't the same thing, or even the same kind of thing. You know that as well. However, convincing the masses of that will be the work of at least a generation, and, even if it is widely accepted, there will always be people who will be opposed to it for the simple reason "NUCLEAR SCARY!" and nothing else.

yuhong 16y ago

Or just abandon factory farming and stop animals from being treated as production units.

bryanh 16y ago
Sorry, but I have a bone to pick with people spouting this type of blanket rhetoric. Animals are treated as units of production in developed countries because this is what is required to provide sustenance at a scale that makes it economically feasible for hundreds of millions of people to eat better than ever before in the history of humanity. [1] Seriously, how many times must we start over every time someone watches Food Inc.? [1] http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/CPIFoodAndExpenditures/Data/Expenditures_tables/table7.htm http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/CPIFoodAndExpenditures/Data...
- yuhong 16y ago
  Treating the animals better would still be better than irradiation.
  - bryanh 16y ago
    No one but you is comparing the two. * One is a moral judgement: Should we subjectively mistreat animals in order for humans to be healthy and prosper? * The other is a scientific question: Is irradiation a safe and effective food sanitizing method? Guess which one has dozens and dozens of studies to back it up? OP posted a few links, but try the CDC's take on it: http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol7no3_supp/tauxe.htm http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol7no3_supp/tauxe.htm
- jackowayed 16y ago
  The average American would probably eat a lot better if (s)he ate half as much meat. And cutting meat consumption would allow even more people in the world to eat well. And your link is only moderately related. Yes, we're spending less on food. Yes, we'd have to spend more on food to eat the same exact diet without factory farming animals. But it doesn't make any claim that we are eating better than ever before in the history of humanity.
- szany 16y ago
  Required? http://www.ted.com/talks/mark_bittman_on_what_s_wrong_with_what_we_eat.html http://www.ted.com/talks/mark_bittman_on_what_s_wrong_with_w...

RK 16y ago

Probably not enough cobalt-60 to do that on the necessary scale and accelerators probably can't give you the dose rates necessary for 10kGy x-ray irradiation.