Fukushima: The myth of safety

[Chris Coles]

It now turns out that the regulators and Tokyo Power Co had known for some years that Fukushima was vulnerable; but did nothing about it.

This report is a good read for those interested in the subject. Links for HTML and PDF.

http://bos.sagepub.com/content/67/5/37.full

http://bos.sagepub.com/content/67/5/37.full.pdf

Also for those that need such the same issue in Japanese: http://www.thebulletin.org/web-editi...issue-japanese

[c1ue]

Re: Fukushima: The myth of safety

Meh.

It is easy to look back now and say: well, a 9.0 earthquake 65 miles off the coast of Japan and 14 meter tsunami is coming in the next decade before Fukushima is end of lifed.

If these predictions were so credible, why then weren't all the coastline villages evacuated?

To say that somehow TEPco is the devil here because of the ignored predictions, you should also condemn all the real estate developers, local/city governments, and local citizens for the 20000 Japanese who were killed/are missing due to the tsunami.

[necron99]

Re: Fukushima: The myth of safety

Evacuating and dislocating coastal communities is a different proposition than evacuating or protecting a high-tech nuclear power plant. Communities are more adaptable and resilient in an emergency, than a nuclear plant, as we have seen. Communities don't tend to poison the environment for miles around when a disaster strikes, at least not in quite the same way. To say that the nuclear plant didn't need special safety analysis and consideration just because the Japanese didn't evacuate coastal fishing villages is a false equivalence.

It may not be fair to single out Tepco as a "devil". But the problem is that people who want a change in the wider society's nuclear policies have to start by pointing their fingers somewhere, at somebody. People who want to change the nuclear policies start by raising safety issues.

The larger philosophical problem is, humans tend to find boundaries by pushing past them. we've gotten good at using statistics and "risk management" as an excuse, like these characters in the following XKCD comic.

Humans tend to push things until they get a failure. That's how we find boundaries. That's all well and good at a sporting event or when conquering a wild frontier, but perhaps not so good when dealing with people's health and safety, or stockpiles of tons and tons of what are among the most toxic elements known to nature.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...472,full.story

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/434558...lear-reactors/

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/434754...us-nuke-sites/

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/435291...pt-population/

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/435563...s-environment/#

http://www.seattlepi.com/news/articl...es-1430695.php#

http://www.propublica.org/article/nu...ster-readiness#

I can't speak much to Japanese policy. But while America was founded on bold risk-taking [so the story goes], I have often wondered if in the 21st century we have become too clever for our own good. We need less drive, innovation and risk-taking in exchange for being a bit more prudent. Look at this comic here; that's how we forge ahead with nuclear power plants, 'innovative' financial instruments, and all manner of modern marvels. 'Black Swan' type events become inevitable. It's almost like Heisenberg: the fact that we know the odds, and take them for granted, itself is an act that changes the odds.

[c1ue]

Re: Fukushima: The myth of safety

Evacuating and dislocating coastal communities is a different proposition than evacuating or protecting a high-tech nuclear power plant. Communities are more adaptable and resilient in an emergency, than a nuclear plant, as we have seen. Communities don't tend to poison the environment for miles around when a disaster strikes, at least not in quite the same way. To say that the nuclear plant didn't need special safety analysis and consideration just because the Japanese didn't evacuate coastal fishing villages is a false equivalence.

It seems quite clear the communities were not either more resilient or more adaptable than Fukushima. The 20,000 dead and missing, the hundreds of miles of shoreline communities scoured into the sea would attest to this.

As has been extensively documented, the earthquake that struck off the coast of Japan in March was 10 times stronger than Fukushima was designed for, the subsequent tsunami was 3 times higher than Fukushima was designed to withstand, and Fukushima was hit by both in quick succession.

In contrast Japan has a long and sordid history of being hit by tsunamis - other articles documented on iTulip show multiple century markers for past tsunami landfalls which were ignored by residential builders and residents.

So I am still unclear on what you are trying to say.

As I've noted again and again: Fukushima started operating in 1971.

It was planned for end of life in within 5 years of now after a 40 year lifespan.

Had the earthquake been on land, or 200 miles north, the Fukushima nuclear power plant might well have been fine - though other power plants might have been affected.

Unlike Three Mile Island, or Chernobyl, there has yet to be demonstrated operator error at Fukushima.

The cause was a natural disaster, one which claimed 20,000 lives in a one in a century event for Japan and one in ten thousand years for that specific part of Japan.

If you want to stop building nuclear power plants - that's perfectly understandable.

Keep in mind the alternative is going to be just as nasty, only in a different way.

[necron99]

Re: Fukushima: The myth of safety

So I am still unclear on what you are trying to say.

Just that there will be thriving fishing villages on the coast again in two or three years. There won't be much of anything built within the radiation zone for 40 or 50 or 200 or 300 years. I'd say that makes the fishing villages more resilient and adaptive than the nuclear plant. Sure those fishing villages will experience tragedy again, but they will heal and grow back organically. That's part of the human condition, including making mistakes. The artificiality of the nuclear plant condemns the area around it to sickness and pollution for centuries. That's part of the difference between the two.

If you want to stop building nuclear power plants - that's perfectly understandable.
Keep in mind the alternative is going to be just as nasty, only in a different way.

Unfortunately we are in complete agreement on this. Things will get nasty one way or another. Basically the whole planet's civilization is clearly in a period of overshoot, and the snap-back will be very, very painful.

But, as I imply above, I'd like to stop building nuclear plants because the consequences of doing so... the "fallout," if you will, from the Nuclear Age... will remain dangerous, harming people and the environment for centuries longer than the consequences of building paper houses in a flood zone. We are committing our descendents to the umpteenth generation to pursue and maintain this highly risky, extremely toxic technology. I think humans as a species can recover from the snap-back, from the over-population and over-reliance on technology -- through organic, sustainable growth much more easily and with fewer long-term consequences if we stop relying on toxic solutions such as nuclear power. I'd rather go through such turmoil only once than imagine my descendents going through these disasters and contamination again and again for centuries as these teetering edifices inevitably degrade and fail. And then someday, centuries from now, our descendents will run out of uranium and have to fall back to the organic/sustainable solutions anyway. Why not just cut out the heartache of the intermediate steps.

[necron99]

Re: Fukushima: The myth of safety

Postscript:

As I've noted again and again: Fukushima started operating in 1971.
It was planned for end of life in within 5 years of now after a 40 year lifespan.

Do you really think that, without the tsunami, the plant would be razed and cleaned up in 2016? Become productive farmland again? Or would it have become the Japanese equivalent of a Superfund site, unusable ground, forever tasked with stockpiling hundreds of drums of highly toxic waste, like US nuclear power plants are? Just sitting there waiting for the next tsunami to expose the contaminated waste...
Part of the point of the several articles I linked to above, is that we always push these things past their scheduled limits. It is never economical to dismantle and take these things down on schedule, a huge expense and effort for very little payoff, while demand keeps increasing and we need the energy. Our economic theory is not equipped to recognize the wisdom of prudence and caution. Inevitably, these things will be pushed beyond their design life, meet a disaster, and then everyone throws up their hands and says "Nobody could have predicted".

[c1ue]

Re: Fukushima: The myth of safety

Just that there will be thriving fishing villages on the coast again in two or three years. There won't be much of anything built within the radiation zone for 40 or 50 or 200 or 300 years. I'd say that makes the fishing villages more resilient and adaptive than the nuclear plant. Sure those fishing villages will experience tragedy again, but they will heal and grow back organically. That's part of the human condition, including making mistakes. The artificiality of the nuclear plant condemns the area around it to sickness and pollution for centuries. That's part of the difference between the two.

This is interesting - so somehow you say that 20,000 dead is merely a statistic, but a light to medium dose of radiation for 80 miles around Fukushima is a big deal?

What about the future impact of these 20,000 people? Their children that won't be, their jobs that won't be, their inventions that won't be, their hopes/fears/joys/sorrows that won't be?

Why is it that the future impact of radiation is counted, but not the future impact of 20,000 dead people?

But, as I imply above, I'd like to stop building nuclear plants because the consequences of doing so... the "fallout," if you will, from the Nuclear Age... will remain dangerous, harming people and the environment for centuries longer than the consequences of building paper houses in a flood zone. We are committing our descendents to the umpteenth generation to pursue and maintain this highly risky, extremely toxic technology.

Again, you somehow seek to single out nuclear power as being dangerous, risky, and toxic.

The boiling vats which extract rare earths, these aren't dangerous, risky and toxic?

The mercury mined for CFL lamps isn't dangerous, risky, and toxic?

The 'seasoning' elements used in semiconductors: arsenic, nitrides, phosphides, various flouric compounds including hydroflouric acid - these aren't dangerous, risky, and toxic?

Even burning wood causes (at least according to the consensus) nasty CO2 to enter the atmosphere (again), as well as soot.

We won't even go into the dangers of coal mining, of oil well drilling, of hydrofracking for natural gas, etc etc.

[Starving Steve]

Re: Fukushima: The myth of safety

I totally OPPOSE sitting cross-eyed, praying several times each day, abandoning science, and doing NOTHING in order to gain a spiritual sense of well being and happiness. That is a TURD-WORLD philosophy and a turd-world way of existing.

Fukushima should be re-built with larger sea-walls and an independent (back-up) electric-power system and maybe modifications to its cooling water pumping system in case of another tsunami. And New Orleans should be re-built with larger sea-walls. Joplin, Missouri should be re-built with stronger buildings. Miami needs to plan for a category-five hurricane. Mexico City needs to plan for more people... And progress should continue on.

Furthermore, radiation in small and even moderate amount does NOT raise mortality risk. In fact, radiation in moderate amount may even be healthy for people. Living-things including human-beings naturally repair cellular damage done by radiation. No-one has died from radiation at Fukushima, and no-one will die from radiation at Fukishima.

The entire environmental movement is way off-base about many issues and including: lies about radiation, lies about man-made global warming, lies about the Greenland ice-cap disappearing, lies about alpine glaciers disappearing, lies about the sea-level rising, lies about islands disappearing, lies about the toxicity of tiny amounts of mercury, lies about the great toxicity of plutonium, denial of the NATURAL existence of trans-uraniumic elements in the environment, lies about the shortage of water in the world, lies about the risk to Lake Superior from taconite pellets, lies about so-called "dead-zones" in the Gulf of Mexico, lies about endangered species, lies about CO2 being a pollutant, lies about the Alberta tar sands destroying the environment, lies about green energy being a viable energy solution, doctored climate models, doctored glacial maps, doctored pictures of polar bears drowning, distortions and lies about the risks of fracking, lies about the risks of side-a-ways drilling, distortions and lies about the safety of atomic power plants, and a host of other issues.

And I won't even get into stories about how scientists, REAL scientists, with Ph.Ds from major universities in such fields as nuclear physics, physics, chemistry, bio-chemistry, biology, geo-physics, geology, engineering, and climatology have been threatened, silenced, and bullied-about by eco-frauds and self-appointed environmental "experts".... For more information about this, please contact Dr. Bill Wattenburg of the University of California, Berkeley.

LEAN FORWARD

[necron99]

Re: Fukushima: The myth of safety

This is interesting - so somehow you say that 20,000 dead is merely a statistic, but a light to medium dose of radiation for 80 miles around Fukushima is a big deal?
What about the future impact of these 20,000 people? Their children that won't be, their jobs that won't be, their inventions that won't be, their hopes/fears/joys/sorrows that won't be?
Why is it that the future impact of radiation is counted, but not the future impact of 20,000 dead people?

It all hinges on a matter of freedom... y'know, that thing that economists like to assume people want and use rationally.

Those villages and the 20,000 people who became casualties -- they built there on their own free will. They thought they were doing their best for their descendants, but it turns out they were wrong. Mistakes are a part of freedom and natural disasters of one sort or another can't ultimately be avoided.

By concentrating and refining the toxic radioactive materials, we are burdening our descendents with the responsibility to deal with them for hundreds or thousands of years. We are committing our descendents to a course that they may or may not agree with. This course we have decided for them is hugely expensive and technically risky. We are committing them to answer questions, such as the long-term care of the hazardous waste, which we aren't even close to solving ourselves. We are taking away their freedom and chaining them to this nuclear system. And what they are paying for, thousands of years into the future, is our convenience to flip on a light switch today. They don't derive any benefit from the nuclear mess we are bequeathing to them -- the waste they must take care of was generated so that we could consume and burn up electricity today. (Any energy our descendents derive from the nuclear plants in the future will be a burden too, which they pass to their descendents.) Today's act of flipping on the TV to watch some sitcom re-run, if powered by a nuclear plant, has consequences thousands of years into the future. Even our greenhouse gases will be long out of the atmosphere before the nuclear waste becomes inert. Why isn't that viewed as oppressive as the unpayable national debt, or as oppressive as a dictator who steals wealth from his population?

So many of the problems we face today ultimately derive from the fact that we tend to use materials which are for all intents and purposes permanent, to solve problems which are fleeting and temporary. The mercury and arsenic you mention are indeed dangerous, risky, and toxic, but pound for pound nuclear materials are far more dangerous, risky, toxic. Nuclear materials can kill you at a distance; mercury and arsenic can't. That's why they're a national security issue which will in all likelihood outlast the governments which take them on. Yeah ultimately I would prefer to live in a civilization that doesn't rely on mercury and arsenic in everyday products, but let's tackle the biggest threats first.

[c1ue]

Re: Fukushima: The myth of safety

By concentrating and refining the toxic radioactive materials, we are burdening our descendents with the responsibility to deal with them for hundreds or thousands of years. We are committing our descendents to a course that they may or may not agree with. This course we have decided for them is hugely expensive and technically risky. We are committing them to answer questions, such as the long-term care of the hazardous waste, which we aren't even close to solving ourselves. We are taking away their freedom and chaining them to this nuclear system. And what they are paying for, thousands of years into the future, is our convenience to flip on a light switch today. They don't derive any benefit from the nuclear mess we are bequeathing to them -- the waste they must take care of was generated so that we could consume and burn up electricity today. (Any energy our descendents derive from the nuclear plants in the future will be a burden too, which they pass to their descendents.) Today's act of flipping on the TV to watch some sitcom re-run, if powered by a nuclear plant, has consequences thousands of years into the future. Even our greenhouse gases will be long out of the atmosphere before the nuclear waste becomes inert. Why isn't that viewed as oppressive as the unpayable national debt, or as oppressive as a dictator who steals wealth from his population?

You're saying on the one hand that the 20,000 tragically dead via natural disaster are fine because they chose to be vulnerable.

On the other hand, you're saying that Fukushima - even if had they owned and/or bought 100% of the land which was exposed to radiation contamination from the same natural disaster - is somehow different.

That this land is somehow held in trust for future generations.

This is a common meme throughout the 'natural humanist' movement, but I am always struck by why this isn't applied to all things, only those areas which are considered objectionable like nuclear power.

The mercury and arsenic you mention are indeed dangerous, risky, and toxic, but pound for pound nuclear materials are far more dangerous, risky, toxic.

Pound for pound this might be true, but there are far more pounds of mercury, arsenic, and similar toxic substances than nuclear material.

Nuclear material also eventually disappears. It might take thousands of years for certain varieties, but every second that passes sees the total level of radioactive substances fall.

The earth we live on has far less uranium than in the past - look up the Oklo natural reactor.

Sea water in addition contains 4.6 billion tons of uranium.

The toxic elements referred to above, on the other hand, don't ever go away. As we speak the entire south end of San Francisco Bay is still contaminated by the leftover pilings from what used to be the largest mercury mine in the United States:

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2007/1240/pdf/ofr20071240.pdf

One of the most prolific mercury-producing mining areas in North America, located in the hills south of San Jose, Calfornia, is the New Almaden Mining District, which generated over 3.7x10exp7 kg of mercury between 1845 and 1975 (Cargill and others, 1980)

Yes, that's 18,500 metric tons of mercury.

This is the same Bay around and in which 7 million people live.

A final picture: uranium-tinted glass swans


EDIT: For comparison: the estimated total air emissions release of radiation as estimated by NISA on April 12, 2011 was between 370 and 630 peta-becquerels.

If I assume 100% of this release was Cesium 137 - the primary long lived isotope - the total amount of release was: 197 kilograms.

peta-becquerels = 10exp15 becquerels.
activity factor of cesium 137: 3.2x10exp12 becquerels

The actual amount of cesium 137 released: 15000 terabecquerels worth, or 4.7 kilograms

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...iroshimas.html

[mmr]

Re: Fukushima: The myth of safety

Along the same lines -

Nuclear Crisis Set Off Fears Over Tokyo, Report Says

In the darkest moments of last year’s nuclear accident, Japanese leaders did not know the actual extent of damage at the plant and secretly considered the possibility of evacuating Tokyo, even as they tried to play down the risks in public, an independent investigation into the accident disclosed on Monday....

The 400-page report, due to be released later this week, also describes a darkening mood at the prime minister’s residence as a series of hydrogen explosions rocked the plant on March 14 and 15. It says Mr. Kan and other officials began discussing a worst-case outcome if workers at the Fukushima Daiichi plant were evacuated. This would have allowed the plant to spiral out of control, releasing even larger amounts of radioactive material into the atmosphere that would in turn force the evacuation of other nearby nuclear plants, causing further meltdowns.

The report quotes the chief cabinet secretary at the time, Yukio Edano, as having warned that such a “demonic chain reaction” of plant meltdowns could result in the evacuation of Tokyo, 150 miles to the south.

“We would lose Fukushima Daini, then we would lose Tokai,” Mr. Edano is quoted as saying, naming two other nuclear plants. “If that happened, it was only logical to conclude that we would also lose Tokyo itself.”

The report also describes the panic within the Kan administration at the prospect of large radiation releases from the more than 10,000 spent fuel rods that were stored in relatively unprotected pools near the damaged reactors. The report says it was not until five days after the earthquake that a Japanese military helicopter was finally able to confirm that the pool deemed at highest risk, near the No. 4 reactor, was still safely filled with water.

“We barely avoided the worst-case scenario, though the public didn’t know it at the time,” Mr. Funabashi, the foundation founder, said.

[Starving Steve]

Re: Fukushima: The myth of safety

The human-body repairs damage done by radiation. Heretofore, this was not known. So radiation is not all that toxic, at least not over the long-term and in small amounts.

Also, coal-burning emits thorium and other radioactive substances. These are gases breathed into the lungs. Similarly, oil-burning and natural-gas burning emits radioactive gases, too.

Also, radiation is everywhere in the environment. If you are concerned about radiation, don't eat; don't breathe; don't smoke; don't drink water; don't build a fire in your fireplace; don't burn fossil fuels; don't breathe smoke of any kind; don't stand in sunlight; don't sleep next to your spouse or pet; don't stand outside; don't stand in crowds; don't stand under high-voltage lines; especially don't stand under northern (and southern) lights; don't live near the magnetic poles; don't eat bone marrow; don't eat fish-bones; don't travel in airplanes; stay away from cement; stay away from rocks and rock cliffs; don't live at high altitude; avoid electrical storms; and definitely stay away from X-ray and CT-scans; don't drink radioactive tracers; stay out of caves and basements due to radon gas; stay out of hospitals; try to stay out of buildings; try to stay away from soil; don't breathe dust; don't breathe motor-vehicle exhaust; stay away from old luminous dials due to radium paint; don't eat too much carbon because of Carbon-14, don't burn your toast; try not to breathe; don't chew on bones; don't drink too much sea-water because of its dissolved minerals; stay away from transmission towers; stay away from your TV; avoid using your cellular phone; stay away from your micro-wave oven; among other don'ts, dangers, and stay-aways......

So, making an issue about atomic reactors is bull-sh*t. Furthermore, the environment around Chernobyl in Russia has recovered totally. This was a surprise. Living-things repair radiation damage, and this was heretofore not known. There are no mutations of anything around Chernobyl.

Finally, there is no shortage of uranium in the world. Furthermore, breeder reactors will produce other radioactive (fissionable) fuels for reactors. It is possible to produce more fissionable fuels than one starts with in a reactor. Uranium fuel can fission into thorium fuel in a breeder reactor. That fissioning would generate energy. The thorium fuel could then be fissioned, and more energy could be generated, etc.

The peaceful use of atomic energy to boil water, produce steam, and then to generate electricity with the steam by turning a turbine is one of mankind's greatest achievements. Atomic energy is one of mankind's greatest blessings.

One more very important point: atomic power can be used in major power plants, but it can also be used in compact reactors to power ships, trains, submarines, airplanes, power shopping centres, power downtowns, power hospitals, power apartment houses, power schools and universities, and power skyscrappers, power government buildings and civic centres; atomic power might even be used to energize military bases, power remote outposts in the arctic or in the antarctic, perhaps even to power satellites in space, and to provide power to settlements on small atolls in the oceans.

[davidstvz]

Re: Fukushima: The myth of safety

As with everything Steve, it's all about rates. Some rates of radiation are lethal, some are harmful, and as you see a very limited amount may even be beneficial (i.e. hormesis). A steady rate below a certain threshold may have no effect at all.

I think the common wisdom on radiation damage is that it is cumulative. As you point out, that isn't likely to be a strict rule since we encounter radiation in every day life. Still, I would not be too enthusiastic about soaking up excessive rays!

[Starving Steve]

Re: Fukushima: The myth of safety

As with everything Steve, it's all about rates. Some rates of radiation are lethal, some are harmful, and as you see a very limited amount may even be beneficial (i.e. hormesis). A steady rate below a certain threshold may have no effect at all.

I think the common wisdom on radiation damage is that it is cumulative. As you point out, that isn't likely to be a strict rule since we encounter radiation in every day life. Still, I would not be too enthusiastic about soaking up excessive rays!

I understand that the warmth one encounters outside but near the door of your microwave oven is due to microwave radiation transmitted through the door. The warmth is greatest near and along the door frame. This seems to do no harm to me, nor to anyone else.

Being in hospital lately, I witnessed the use of atomic cocktails for tracers in people. I also witnessed the use of X-rays machines, ofcourse. And I witnessed the used of the new CT-scanning machine. I myself, went through that CT-scanning machine twice.

Everytime you use your cellular telephone, you get radiation right next to your skull.

The evidence seems to indicate that even a moderate amount of radiation has no ill affect upon people, neither short- term nor long-term. Living-things on Earth repair cellular damage done by radiation. Obviously, there is a natural limit to how much radiation living-things can be exposed to, but that limit seems to be much higher than previously thought. Limited amounts of radiation might even be beneficial to humans and other living things, in an affect known as hormesis.

Standing in Canada with the northern lights dancing around over my head, I and everyone else around me was receiving an enormous amount of radiation of charged particles, such as alpha particles (protons) and beta particles (electrons) from the Sun.

Anyone afraid of radiation should not stand in sunlight, because the Sun emits all types of radiation including X-rays. And speaking of X-rays and cosmic-rays from the universe, these penetrate almost everything. One has to be in a cave to avoid these forms of radiation coming in from above, but inside a cave one receives all kinds of radiation emitted from the granite walls of the cave, including and especially X-rays.

I wish I would have known all of these things when I was a supporter of the environmental movement, forty-five years ago when I was an undergraduate at the University of California in Berkeley. But it takes a lifetime of learning to learn all of these facts about radiological dosimetry and environmental health..... Now my views have changed.

[davidstvz]

Re: Fukushima: The myth of safety

I understand that the warmth one encounters outside but near the door of your microwave oven is due to microwave radiation transmitted through the door. The warmth is greatest near and along the door frame. This seems to do no harm to me, nor to anyone else.

There are many types of radiation. Microwave radiation consists of photons (same thing as light and AM/FM radio, or the waves coming from your cell phone) at a very specific wavelength. At the wavelength used in microwaves, it transmits energy to water molecules very efficiently and it will burn you if the microwave door is broken by heating up the water in your skin. A minor amount of leakage will just make you feel warm. However, that wavelength does not interact with DNA (the length from wave crest to trough is to big).

Very high wavelengths of radiation (i.e. smaller distance from trough to crest) can interact with and thus alter or destroy the DNA in your cells. High persistent doses will simply stop the exposed cells from functioning and dividing which will cause death sometime later (a few hours to a week or so later depending on the dose; not a pleasant way to go). Light doses of high energy radiation will make you similarly sick, but you can recover eventually. Light doses that you can survive the direct effects of may alter your DNA and thus cause cancer. Very light doses may not cause any noticeable effect, but could still cause cancer.

There are definitely things to be scared of, but most people aren't sure what. For example, the fear of irradiated food is due to lack of understanding. Normal food is bombarded with heat (infrared radiation) which causes chemical changes that make food tasty and also kills bacteria. Irradiated food gets ultra high energy radiation that scrambles the DNA of bacteria in or on the food making it safe to eat without causing chemical changes in the macro structure of the food (cooking). Put another way, cooking cooks food and kills bacteria, irradiation with high energy just kills bacteria (no cooking). In neither case is the food radioactive after the process because no radioactive material was deposited into the food. Simply, people are confusing radiation with radioactive material that emits harmful radiation.