No Subject

[JMUCKERHEIDE@delphi.com]

George Cicotte wrote:

A great insightful treatment of the subject. Note that Franz reflects a
problem beyond himself that we have when the radiation "control" mindset
becomes more important than radiation "protection". It is not enough to
"protect" people, we have adopted a regulatory and programs mission mindset
(by governments and others in science and public policy) to "control" for the
sake of control, and that requires "us" to "decide" whether anyone's use of
*any* radiation/radioactivity is "justified". Clearly food irradiation meets
that test, but Franz' comments reflect this attitude in even this unamiguous
situation! In the process we should re-examine whether our "rad protection"
initiatives go far beyond "protection" of anyone's chosen or preferred use of
radiation, to control for the sake of control, that includes killing safe and
legitimate uses of radiation science and technologies if they can't or don't
want to carry all the burdens of control (not just financial) that we can/want 
to impose. (Recall the tritium exit signs :-) and current "minimization
programs".) 

Thanks.

Regards, Jim Muckerheide
jmuckerheide@delphi.com
=====================================
>      Herr Schoenhofer,
>      
>      I reacted very negatively to the campaign being waged by the group in 
>      question.  However, I don't really expect to influence them.  Your 
>      comments on the value of tact will work with civilized, intelligent 
>      people, and I believe most people are more intelligent than we presume 
>      when we see this sort of statement.
>      
>      Simply stated, I believe that many of the people involved in such 
>      "disinformation" campaigns are fully aware that their statements are 
>      in error.  Being right is not their agenda.  Being heard and noticed 
>      is more important to them than being right, and they don't let facts 
>      get in their way.
>      
>      The issue is not whether we need food irradiation.  The question is 
>      more correctly a series of value judgements:
>      
>      1.  Does food irradiation work to preserve food, kill insects, etc?
>      
>      2.  Is food irradiation safe for the person consuming the food, and 
>      reasonably (equivalent to other methods) safe for those who perform 
>      the irradiation?
>      
>      3.  Does food irradiation have advantages in cost, convenience, 
>      safety, etc.?
>      
>      4.  Is it legal to irradiate food?
>      
>      5.  Does a person who sees irradiated food have the right to not eat 
>      it?
>      
>      I believe the answers to the above are positive.  Given that 
>      assumption, everyone has a legal right, in my opinion, to oppose or 
>      support it, as they prefer, and a moral right to the same, but what 
>      they do NOT have a moral right to do is to deliberately mislead people 
>      with statements they either know to be false, or about which they know 
>      nothing, but purport to have irrefutable evidence of, then use that 
>      position to harm persons or entities that wish to pursue legal, safe, 
>      useful endeavors.  This sort of disinformation doesn't just harm the 
>      people in the industry.  Disinformation about radiation usage and the 
>      effects thereof has, in my opinion, resulted in the following:
>      
>      1.  Human death and disease borne of proliferation of fossil fuel 
>      usage which would otherwise have been averted.
>      
>      2.  Damage to aquatic ecosystems and food industries from increases in 
>      use of hydroelectric power, both through construction of dams and 
>      through increased diversion of water from irrigation and maintenance 
>      of fish populations to generation.
>      
>      3.  Human death and disease from pesticides, pests, infestations, 
>      virii, bacteria, etc., in foods which were not irradiated because of 
>      opposition to the process.
>      
>      I believe I can substantiate my assertions regarding prior knowledge 
>      by such groups in general, although I cannot do so for the specific 
>      group in question, since they appear to have recently sprouted.
>      
>      You stated that you did not believe that shelf life is an adequate 
>      argument.  It appears to me that you believe that the argument must be 
>      compelling, that one has to show that we NEED irradiation.  I contend 
>      that there are lots of things we accept as normal, but which we don't 
>      NEED, and that if it works faster, cheaper, better, more safely, etc., 
>      and it is adequately safe in the first place, then in doesn't matter 
>      HOW much faster, cheaper, better, or more safely, only that the user 
>      can realize an advantage.  The availability and acceptance of the 
>      process should dictate whether food is irradiated, not whether one can 
>      show that there is no other way.
>      
>      IMHO, good hygiene is fine, but just because good hygiene is a good 
>      idea doesn't mean it is better.  Many perishable foodstuffs, for 
>      example, deteriorate quickly after washing, yet if you don't wash them 
>      immediately, you allow further degradation by a pest.  An additional 
>      problem is that washing creates waste.  If you rinse apples, for 
>      example, and dry them, you create waste water with fruit residues, 
>      debris, pesticides, and any number of other problems, in addition to 
>      making it a process that involves several steps .  IF you put them in 
>      a sealed unit, irradiate them, and ship them, when they reach even a 
>      third-world location they will be much fresher, more appetizing, and 
>      more nutritious than the other way.  You can brush the dead bugs off 
>      at the other end.
>      
>      You used the argument that third world countries may have more need 
>      for irradiation, but that developed countries don't need it, and I 
>      inferred from your comments that you believe that if one can "get 
>      along without it," one should not irradiate foods.  The WHO made their 
>      position statement based on the fact that there is a GREATER need in 
>      third world countries, not because it should be avoided elsewhere.  I 
>      disagree, based on the foregoing arguments.  We shouldn't be required 
>      to use rapid (and thus more expensive) distribution methods to avoid 
>      using a readily available technology.
>      
>      With respect to Salmonella in particular:  I took a microbiology 
>      course for my Masters in Environmental Science.  I don't know how 
>      degrees in Austria are organized, but if you don't know, a Masters is 
>      a step up from a regular four year college degree, and a step below a 
>      Doctor of Philosophy, usually taking 2 or 3 years of full-time 
>      college.  That is just so you'll know it was an in-depth course.
>      
>      My apologies - I digress.  Salmonella, according to the text and 
>      references, is resistant to many antibacterial processes, yielding 
>      only to washing and irradiation.  Washing is labor intensive and 
>      costly, but is done anyway for several reasons, not just for the 
>      bacteria.  The problem is that after the washing, the remaining 
>      Salmonella then repopulates the surfaces unless the food is quickly 
>      and deeply frozen, which itself reduces the nutrition of the food and 
>      makes it less appetizing.  With irradiation, the killing of the 
>      bacteria is more complete (if done properly, there is NO Salmonella) 
>      and if the food is in a sealed package, all bacteria are excluded.  
>      While washing is generally effective, it is nowhere near 100%, and 
>      complete cooking is required in order to kill the remaining bacteria, 
>      and that which grew since the food was washed.  Unfortunately, that 
>      doesn't always happen.  Food irradiation so nearly always works 100% 
>      that I know of no cases where a person even became ill because of 
>      repopulation of a bacterium on the food.  That's good enough for me.  
>      If the restaurants in Seattle, Washington, a couple of years ago, had 
>      bought their ground beef from someone who irradiated it, several 
>      deaths, including those of children, would have been averted, 
>      regardless of how well the meat was cooked.  There are other less 
>      publicized but no less tragic instances which I could substantiate for 
>      you.
>      
>      V/R
>      George R. Cicotte
>      george_cicotte@health.ohio.gov