One of most commonly asked questions is whether sterile insects used in the Sterile Insect Technique are radioactive. It’s a valid question.
It is important to note that there is a general misunderstanding of the difference between irradiation and radioactive contamination, or radioactivity. Insects used as part of the Sterile Insect Technique are irradiated. Irradiation occurs when something is exposed to energy such as microwaves, x-rays, gamma rays or light. Contamination occurs when a source of radiation is transferred. Microwaved food, a person who has had an x-ray, or a sterilized moth are not contaminated by radiation since they do not contain the ionizing radiation source. Insects sterilized with gamma rays (used with the SIT) are thus not made radioactive in a way that could be harmful to other organisms.
Due to the low level of radiation used, there is no cause for concern of harmful residual radiation from sterilized insects. In fact, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency, the radiation dose used to sterilize insects is lower than that generally used in irradiating food products. Additional information on the use of ionizing radiation and its safety is available through the World Health Organization.
There are some good online resources if you’d like to read more about this:
(WHO) World Health Organization. 2009. Ionizing radiation: What is ionizing radiation?
Gregory S. Simmons, Ph.D.
APHIS-PPQ-CPHST Light Brown Apple Moth Coordinator
United States Department of Agriculture
Author: Dr. Gregory Simmons, Light Brown Apple Moth Coordinator, USDA | Tags:
BETTER QUESTION: ARE STERILE INSECTS NECESSARY OR EFFECTIVE FOR THE LIGHT BROWN APPLE MOTH?
Correct Answer: NO!
Radiation and Chemotherapy may be necessary poisons to fight Cancer. Small amounts of radiation from x-rays may be “Worth it” in order to see and diagnose problems.
But obviously, no rational or sane person would take radiation or chemotherapy without having a problem in their body.
And that is the problem with this Sterile Moth Release Eradication program for the Light Brown Apple Moth (LBAM). LBAM is NOT a problem in California. LBAM has caused NO DAMAGE IN CALIFORNIA. LBAM has been in California for between four and fifty years and NO DAMAGE. LBAM has also been in Hawaii for well over 100 years and guess what: NO DAMAGE.
LBAM is not an insect of economic significance in any country in the world where it lives, but that cannot be said about some dishonest politicians and managers of government agencies who are delivering false information to the media and promoting the LBAM Eradication Program.
The LBAM Eradication Program is a FRAUD for money. It was set up to bring $billions of scarce taxpayer dollars to the budget of the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA). Then those $Billions were to be funneled through service and pesticide contracts to large privileged insider chemical companies, intimately connected to top management of CDFA.
When the public and courts stopped aerial spray of LBAM pesticides on people’s communities in 2008, Sterile Insect Technology became the foundation of the LBAM eradiation program, not to actually eradicate the moth, but to keep the $$$ funds flowing.
There is likely not a single Entomologist (bug scientist) in the state that believes that LBAM can be eradicated (and remember there is no reason to eradicate LBAM). CDFA Management always refers to “Agency scientists,” but not once has CDFA Management ever produced even one agency scientist that believes and can demonstrate that eradication is possible or necessary. They cannot, because the program is a fraud and it was all predicated on lies about the danger OF LBAM and the eradiation capability of the CDFA.
Straw Man is a technique to discredit valid opposition to a fraudulent program, such as CDFA’s LBAM Eradication Program. CDFA with USDA assistance represents the opposition to their program as a “Straw Man” with foolish concerns, such as (1) Radioactive Sterile Insects; (2) Airplanes flying low overhead. The radioactive quality from the sterile moths and the airplanes flying low are at the very bottom of the list of concerns, but CDFA pretends that those are the main concerns of a naïve public.
The true opposition to the CDFA LBAM Eradication Program comes from top scientists in every field, from elected officials familiar with the CDFA program, from millions of citizens with common sense and from well-educated and informed researchers. Their valid concerns are:
(1) Why is CDFA reporting damage from LBAM in California when NONE has occurred?
(2) Why is CDFA pretending eradication is possible when that is false?
(3) Why is CDFA taking $Billions of public funds during this tough economy for something unnecessary and impossible?
(4) Why is CDFA & USDA talking about Sterile Insect Technology (SIT) for LBAM when none of LBAM’s attributes lend itself to SIT?
(5) Why is CDFA telling the public that the pesticides for this program are safe when there have been no tests that demonstrate safety of the proposed pesticides of this program used in the fashion that CDFA proposes?
(6) Why didn’t CDFA investigate the many hundreds of illness reports from people and doctors in Santa Cruz and Monterey Counties, or the tens of thousands of other people who became ill and did not report, after CDFA’s aerial spray of pesticides in Santa Cruz and Monterey Counties?
(7) Why won’t CDFA investigate the deaths of people’s pets following CDFA’s aerial spray?
(8) Why won’t CDFA investigate the children who were rushed to emergency rooms after the aerial spray, including the 11 month old boy who stopped breathing and whose life was saved by a team of doctors at the County Hospital of Monterey Peninsula?
(9) Why won’t CDFA respond to any of the people or parents of children who suffered after the aerial spray who have written, called and emailed CDFA and who are still waiting for a response?
If this article is correct that only a small amount of radiation occurs from this process and only a small amount of red dye is injected into these moths that are added to the environment, even these small amounts are too much, since there is NO reason to do it at all.
Mr. Gregory S. Simmons, Ph.D., APHIS-PPQ-CPHST Light Brown Apple Moth Coordinator, USDA, asking you again:
(1) What is your estimate of the likelihood, the actual numerical probability, that SIT will eradicate LBAM?
(2) If your estimate is greater than zero percent or greater than “No chance,” please support your response with hard science, rather than a statement of being “Hopeful” as has been the case with other CDFA and USDA representatives.
(3) What are the LBAM population numbers at the test area above which SIT will be determined a failure and below which it will be determined a success. Please tell us in advance so that USDA cannot set the numbers of success after they collect the data.
(4) I know this is not your area, but if you have any information, please let us know why CDFA has reported California LBAM damage to the media and elected officials continuously for over two years now, yet the CDFA Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) which postdates all claims of damage states: NO DAMAGE FROM LBAM IN CALIFORNIA.
Thank you Mr. Gregory Simmons.
Mr. Williams,
There are numerous examples of the successful use of SIT to control or eradicate other invasive species, including several moth species that are similar to LBAM. At this time, because we are in the process of gathering data to evaluate SIT as a tool for LBAM eradication or suppression, it is not possible to determine how successful the SIT can be as a standalone tactic or in combination with integrated pest management tactics. That is what this evaluation is designed to tell us.
Also, LBAM population numbers in the test area are no indication of evaluation success, as the tests are not now geared towards the local population. The tests are geared to tell us more about the sterile moth.
Mr. Gregory Simmons
Thank you for responding.
However, you have responded with insincere company propaganda. You have delivered misleading and inaccurate information.
You have intentionally deceived by combining “Control” AND “Eradication” in your response. The questions were about “Eradication” but you chose to respond instead to “Control” to deliver the company lies and avoid the hard truth about the futility, fraud, theft and immorality involved with a sham LBAM “Eradication” program.
ERADICATION of LBAM: The fabricated and unnecessary CDFA and USDA Eradication program is what robs the taxpayers of billions of dollars, jeopardizes people’s health with tons of pesticides and violates harmonious natural balances of animals, insects, water and air in our environment.
CONTROL of LBAM: Control is mostly done naturally by predators and other insects parasitizing the eggs of LBAM. Control does not need to steal taxpayer funds. Control does not need to endanger people with pesticides in their communities.
Simmons, your phrase “…successful use of SIT to control or eradicate…” is similar to “…successful use of hand soap to clean hands or cure level 4 cancer. By relating SIT to “Control” but then speaking “Control OR Eradication”, you deceivingly associate SIT with Eradication when there is no association of SIT and LBAM Eradication, any more than hand soap and curing cancer.
Simmons, it is dangerous and costly to every person in California to pretend that SIT could be the foundation tool for a statewide LBAM Eradication program.
CDFA and USDA have deceived and delivered lies throughout this program.
Unfortunately, you have not broken that pattern.
Dr. Simmonas and cohorts in USDA:
How can you justify wasting our (taxpayer) money on:
1. A program based on false pretenses? Note that a very recent competent agency’s economic review shows that main economic costs from the LBAM are from quarantine costs, not from crop damage.
2. Useless, irrelevant, self-promoting postings on frivolous sites, serving no public purpose whatsoever. How about, insteac, dealing with actual scientific proof of alleged and real crop damage and a valid justification for the entire eradication plan?
Show damage ANYWHERE in the last five years or call off the program and your offensive “hungry pests” ad an propaganda campaigns.
Educate, if you can. Quit insulting us.