Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.
Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.
An X-Rayed X-mas: Should the USPS Irradiate Your Mail?
Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
Health Care: It's Time for a Major Overhaul
Alexander Zaitchik
Democracy and Elections:
More Unfinished 2008 Election Business: Verifiable Vote Counts
Steven Rosenfeld
DrugReporter:
California Supreme Court Rules Unanimously Against Compassionate Care
Tamar Todd
Election 2008:
5 Great Progressive Columnists' Advice and Ideas on the Coming Obama Era
Environment:
Major Green Groups Offer Plan to Obama
Kate Sheppard
ForeignPolicy:
Hillary Clinton's Disdain for International Law -- Change We Can Believe In?
Stephen Zunes
Health and Wellness:
Obama's Plan to End the HIV/AIDS Crisis
Kaytee Riek
Hurricane Katrina:
From the Bayou to Baghdad: Mission Not Accomplished
Amy Goodman
Immigration:
Immigration Pathway Still Looks Uphill
Kirk Nielsen
Media and Technology:
Born Digital: Understanding the First Generation of Digital Natives
Doron Taussig
Movie Mix:
Love Bites: What Sexy Vampires Tell Us About Our Culture
Sarah Seltzer
Reproductive Justice and Gender:
Economic Downturn Hits Women the Hardest
Brittany Schell
Rights and Liberties:
Obama: Close, Don't Repackage, Guantánamo
Michael Ratner, Jules Lobel
Sex and Relationships:
Virtual Sex: How Online Games Changed Our Culture
Damon Brown
War on Iraq:
Why Robert Gates is a Terrible Pick
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Water:
Water Neutral: Is the Latest Eco-Term Just Corporate Hype?
Jeff Conant
Imagine if the fruitcake Aunt Emma sends you every year is, in 2001, subjected not just to auntie's stove, but to an oven the size of a house that zaps the poor loaf at 25 kiloGrays, delivering the radioactive equivalent of 825 million chest X-rays to the X-mas cake. And you thought it tasted funky last year.
In response to the current anthrax-in-the-mail scare, the federal government has bought eight such irradiation devices, with an option for 12 more, for the U.S. Postal Service (USPS). At $5 million per device, they are possibly the USPS's most expensive attempt to quiet public fears about bioterrorism. But will the devices actually make the public safer? Or will irradiating our letters, bills, catalogs, mail-order do-dads and holiday presents have unintended health and environmental consequences, either in the long or short term?
Unfortunately, the government isn't answering those question, or hardly any questions at all, about mail irradiation. Unable to get such information, consumer advocates and activists who cut their teeth struggling against irradiated foods have filed a number of public information requests. On Nov. 1, Public Citizen filed a Freedom of Information Act request asking for copies of scientific studies used by the USPS to prove that irradiation technology kills anthrax spores. The Nuclear Information and Research Service (NIRS), also sent a formal letter to the USPS on Nov. 2, asking for full disclosure on mail irradiation.
Among their concerns, according to NIRS Project Coordinator Cindy Folkers, are what might happen if the irradiation process isn't fully effective. "If spores are not destroyed with irradiation, mutation is risked," their Nov. 2 letter pointed out. As Folkers asks, "Might you end up with something worse if you irradiate anthrax?"
In a testimony to Congress at the end of October, USPS Vice President Tom Day referred to an armed forces microbiology study to support his claim that this irradiation technology kills anthrax spores, according to Wenonah Hauter, director of Public Citizen's energy project, who was at the hearing. But Hauter said the study was neither peer-reviewed in the scientific community nor published. "I just want to know how much radiation" will be used, she added.
In Hauter's experience with food irradiation, a process similar to mail irradiation, objects are bombarded with about 7 kiloGrays -- the equivalent of 233 million chest X-rays. She believes the USPS machines, which use a slightly different "e-beam" technology, would deliver 25 kiloGrays. Even at that high level of irradiation, Hauter and Folkers question the devices' efficacy for killing anthrax spores.
"There is not very much research out there," said Hauter, and what there is, she says, does not address the e-beam technology. What research Folkers found indicated there is scientific evidence that water must be present to have irradiation kill spores. But, she said, spores contain only 15 percent to 20 percent water, while normal cells contain about 70 percent water. "Radiation kills by breaking down water," she said. Hauter also claims that e-beams only penetrate 1.5 inches through a package, so thick materials with spores on the bottom would not be sterilized, even if the technology does work.
Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »
| More News and Analysis: | ||
|
Immigration Pathway Still Looks Uphill Immigration: Even with Democrats controlling Congress, immigration reform faces tough going. By Kirk Nielsen, Miller-McCune.com. December 1, 2008. |
Major Green Groups Offer Plan to Obama Environment: How should Obama act on the environment? A report by 29 major enviro groups gave Obama a list of actions and policies. By Kate Sheppard, Grist.org. December 1, 2008. |
Obama's Plan to End the HIV/AIDS Crisis Health and Wellness: Obama promises to leave behind ideology-driven debates over how to spend money, and instead put common sense and science first. By Kaytee Riek, RH Reality Check. December 1, 2008. |