1. What damage would be caused by adopting it?
2. What damage would be caused by not adopting it?
3. How would the technology affect the two ends of the food
supply/consumption chain that interest us most in sustainable
agriculture: the producer and the consumer (as individuals,
not as corporations)?
IMHO it's a tossup for questions 1 and 2, but irradiation
fails question 3. As a recent poster said, it seems to
benefit almost exclusively the middlemen, processors and
shippers; to damage (more local) producers; and, who knows,
maybe harm consumers. I doubt sufficient data exist for health effects.
By the way, something about Dan in sunny P.R.'s suggestion
on how to avoid radiation didn't ring true. The kind of
radiation from, say, a cobalt-60 source, is NOT the same
as radio waves or other forms of
electromagnetic radiation. The former is ionizing, the
latter is non-ionizing. Radio waves are similar to
the familiar visible light--just a different wavelength.
Indeed, his suggestion to live in a cave might increase
most people's exposure, since rock is a primary source
of background ionizing radiation. (Note, though, that
non-ionizing radiation is not always benign, as for
example UV light--wear a hat, Dan!)
The above information is from my memory of the several radiation
safety courses I've had to sit through, but to check it I tried
a quick web search on the word "radiation." It led me to
an interesting page, mainly aimed at defense of nuclear
power plants: www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/radiation.html .
At the bottom there's a link called "Sustainability FAQ" with
enough grist to keep this mill operating for a long time.
Steve Verhey
Palouse, WA
verhey@wsu.edu