AW: [ RadSafe ] radiophobia, alchemy

Rainer.Facius at Rainer.Facius at
Sat Apr 8 10:15:17 CDT 2006



Thank you for enlightening me with respect to the 'ethics' of this company. One does wonder whether the 'managers' of this food industry had been maiming their brains before shooting themselves into their foot? 

On the other hand from your note I can infer that your judicial system - at least occasionally - is able to fend off the most embarrassing instances of obscurantism - after all, Sterigenics lost their case and that leaves room for hope. 

Regards, Rainer


Von: radsafe-bounces at im Auftrag von Steven Dapra
Gesendet: Sa 08.04.2006 15:27
An: radsafe at
Betreff: [ RadSafe ] radiophobia, alchemy 

At 01:08 PM 4/8/06 +0200, you wrote:
>In following up the Sterigenics (Fleurus, Belgium) radiation accident I
>stumbled across the text following below.
>I could not resist the temptation to circulate this testimony of a
>medieval alchemistic worldview flourishing in an alleged age of
>enlightenment and being disseminated by one of our most advanced
>technological achievements ... :-(
><>  (20060408)

Apr. 8

         I read this article.  It's not medieval alchemy at work, as you
will soon see; and some people seem to be more enlightened about making
money than about being honest.  (The two linked articles appear to be the
same, except for the dates on them.)  Assuming that all the events reported
actually happened, it sounds like SteriGenics (and some of the other food
irradiation firms) suffer from gross incompetence and a noticeable
inability to be truthful.  Could the food irradiation industry be shooting
itself in the foot?

         The quote below explains why SteriGenics said that stuff about
Co-60 being absorbed in food, etc.  To make a short story shorter, the
company was trying to evade taxes.  You would think --- wouldn't you? ---
that the owners of the company would realize how foolish they will look
when this crass silliness becomes public knowledge.

"In 1996, SteriGenics lost a California Appeals Court decision in the case
SteriGenics v. County of Orange [No. G014938. Fourth Dist., Div. Three. Jul
31.] In 1989, the county assessed property taxes against the cobalt 60 in
Sterigenics' possession from 1985 to 1989. Sterigenics paid the taxes but
sought a refund, arguing the material was business inventory under section
219 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. Sterigenics maintained that cobalt 60
qualifies for the exemption because it is  'delivered to [its] customers as
part of its services.'  Sterigenics explains,  'cobalt-60 'loses' part of
itself (mass), which loss becomes radiation that is absorbed and
permanently retained by the customers' products.... Unlike energy absorbed
in the form of heat (which dissipates), the energy absorbed from cobalt-60
by those products permanently alters their energy states and [47
Cal.App.4th 1545] molecular bonds. The cobalt-60 does not leave the
customers' products once it is absorbed, and thus it is delivered to the
customer as part of [its] regular, nonprofessional services
....'  Sterigenics was wrong, but it betrays that the company will make
false claims in a court of law only to marginally improve its financial

Steven Dapra
sjd at

You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit:

More information about the RadSafe mailing list