Re: irradiation policy

[Schoenhofer <schoenho@via.at>]

At 13:52 17.12.1996 -0600, you wrote:
>     I apologize, folks, but I couldn't pass this one up
>     
>     Ms. Wieland,
>     
>     With respect to your comments, we are still operating on "different 
>     wavelengths."  You stated in part:
>     
>     :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.
>     
>     Based on a review of your email address, I recommend that you use some 
>     sort of disclaimer about your opinions being your own, and not the 
>     official position of the IAEA.  If this IS the official position of 
>     IAEA, we need to do some serious rethinking about calibrating either 
>     IAEA or the language in IAEA - SS n. 115, 1994.
>     
>     V/R
>     George R. Cicotte
>     george_cicotte@health.ohio.gov
>     If it isn't obvious by now that these are personal opinions on my 
>     part, I'll state it now.  This position in no way reflects the 
>     position of the State of Ohio, the governor thereof, the Ohio 
>     Department of Health, ad nauseum.
>     
---------------------------------------------------------------------

George, (and fellow radsafers)

I intended to reply to you personally concerning your previous comments, but
especially some aspects of your latest ones need some clarification. I do
not think that our opinions differ very much - not at all in your judgement
of the "green" groups (this should read as green in inverted commas, to show
that I do not regard these groups as being really positive for the
environment). I have no sympathy for groups which act in a way they are not
legitimated for - neither by any education and scientific knowledge, nor by
any democratic procedure by the public. (I stated this extensively before in
a post regarding Greenpeace.) Remarks like the ones, that the E. choli
deaths could have been prevented by using irradiation sterilization and that
meat could be irradiated already in the slaughterhouse I can only interpret,
that irradiation of all, but really all, food is recommended by some
persons. Can you determine beforehand which food and which persons can be
affected by E. choli or Salmonella and then pasteurize only these identified
batches or for instance apple juice? One cannot avoid contamination of
poultry with Salmonella from the very beginning - but correct handling of
poultry and observation of basic principles of hygiene also in the private
kitchen will avoid any adverse health effects, because you correctly state
that a well done chicken will be free of Salmonella. I remember from a paper
presented by an Israeli collegue at a meeting, sponsored by both IAEA and
WHO, that washing poultry is the worst way of uniformly contaminating
chicken - the contamination of one chicken will be transferred to all other
uncontaminated ones. 

In your last message you actually convert my opinion into the contrary, I
and not others was concerned about the free choice of the population, to
chose between irradiated and not irradiated food. I can tell you about tests
in France, where both irradiated and not irradiated food (I do not remember,
what it was) was offered in supermarkets side by side at the same price -
and there was no significant sales difference between the two offers. Maybe
there is no reason to fear anything. How about sales of irradiated poultry
in the USA? Are there any statistics about public acceptance available?
Public acceptance means in my opinion statistics on sales, not on opinions.
It is well known that people do not really act in reality the same way as
they pretend in public opinion polls. 
---------------------------------------------------------------------

What really got me to answer to this mail is simply that you "recommend" Ms
Wieland to use a disclaimer. Otherwise you will have to rethink.......

I do not know Ms. Wieland (I am surprised, that you do not call her Frau
Patricia), but her comment would be worth to be discussed more seriously
than some of the replies do. Any recommendation as to disclaimers is
unnecessary. Dear US-Radsafers, would you kindly accept that in Europe a
message signed by a person is a personal message and therefore by definition
needs not reflect the employers or institutes or whatevers opinion and
furtheron no disclaimers are necessary. We need not apologize ad nauseam.
The bad boy Franz Schoenhofer has already once raised this topic in radsafe
and in spite of a few negative reactions I also received a kind explanation,
that in the USA companies might be held responsible for opinions expressed
by their employees. I accept that. Please accept our opöinion, that a
personally signed message is the sole responsibility of the sender. If there
is so much fear to be held responsible I am surprised that there seems to be
no responsibility of a company not pasteurizing apple juice. 

The IAEA is an international organisation, where matters regarding radiation
protection as well as the peaceful use of nuclear energy are treated on a
world wide scale and opinions are not decided at the will of one or two
persons, but for instance for the compilation of the safety series advisory
groups meet and actually every sentence is carefully discussed and is agreed
on in the final version. I myself have been recently on one of the advisory
groups, so I can confirm the procedure. I can assure you that the advisory
groups consist of well known and reputable scientists, who are independent.
It is unavoidable that the outcome does not please everybody - but it is
like in democracy, that opinions have to be accepted, even if they are not
consistent with ones own. There is no reason to revise any of the IAEA
statements or publications, because one or another is not content with it.

This leads me to the question: Is radsafe an international forum, where
anybody around the world may distribute his opinions about topics in
radiation protection and related matters, or is it an exclusive US forum
without place for other opinions?

Finally I want to state, that addressing me as Herr Franz is mere nonsense,
moreover it could be understood as a subtle discrimination by pointing to my
non US-origin. I do not want to give a lecture again on how to address
somebody correctly in German, but unless you use German in your messages,
please call me Franz. 

Franz
Schoenhofer
Habichergasse 31/7
A-1160 WIEN
AUSTRIA/EUROPE
Tel./Fax:	+43-1-4955308
Tel.:		+43-664-3380333
e-mail:		schoenho@via.at