Re[4]: Letter to Consumer Reports

[Ruth Weiner <rfweine@sandia.gov>]

The point is:

1.  None of the methods in the article are "panaceas" nor were they ever claimed
to be, including irradiation.  All of the methods involved still require 
sanitation, and none except irradiation sterilizes. So why single out 
irradiation as "not a panacea" and as still requiring sanitation?  

2.  All of the actual physical methods discussed have possible vague adverse 
environmental and health effects (they all use electricity, for instance) but 
these were not mentioned in connection with those methods.  Why single out 
irradiation? 

3.  Irradiation is in fact more economically competitive than at least two of 
the other methods mentioned, but poor economics was mentioned in the article 
only in connection with food irradiation.

I would not expect an endorsement any more enthusiastic  than the one the 
article contains ("...Osterholm...thinks irradiation is the only way to get 
campylobacter out.... Irradiation....has long been approved for use on 
poultry..."), nor is there anything in the letter I wrote to indicate an 
expectation of enthusiasm.  However, a more honest presentation would have been 
to point out that some people object to food irradiation because of erroneously 
perceived health effects, and that good sanitation is still needed in any case

I never  meant to imply that there was anything "sinister.'  There isn't, but 
there is, in the statements on food irradiation, the tone of snide insinuation 
that can be found in much of the more recent popular environmental literature. 
The rest of the article, as I said, was quite good and in the usual Consumer 
Reports vein.  The statements about irradiation were just so unlike Consumers 
Reports (that I have read for about 25 years).

I was not being cute, or trying to be, and this was perhaps misconstrued. 
However, as my grandfather-in-law used to say "If the shoe fits, it usually 
pinches a little."

Clearly my own opinion and no one else's.

Ruth F. Weiner, Ph. D.
Transportation Systems Department
Sandia National Laboratories
Mail Stop 0718
P. O. Box 5800
Albuquerque, NM 87185-0718
505-844-4791
505-844-0244 (fax)
rfweine@sandia.gov

Clearly only my own opinion.



Clearly my own opinion.

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re[3]: Letter to Consumer Reports
Author:  jeff.king@srs.gov at hubsmtp
Date:    2/24/98 12:39 PM


     Golly, it doesn't seem to me that CU's failure to enthusiastically 
     endorse irradiation constitutes any evidence of some kind of sinister 
     anti-nuclear bias.  Heck, they even acknowledged that it could be 
     useful.  Looks to me like the cautiousness I as I subscriber have come 
     to expect out of Consumer's Union.
     
     Irradiation is, in fact, NOT a panacea.  I would guess that people 
     will still expect some level of sanitation even if irradiation becomes 
     widespread (which I think it should).  Sanitized chicken feces is no 
     more appetizing than unsanitized chicken feces and I would prefer to 
     eat as little as possible of either.  Since irradiation of meat is not 
     going to be 100% sterilization, other methods of pathogen reduction 
     can and will still be valuable.
     
     Wide-spread, bulk irradiation will also come with additional 
     public-health and environmental burdens.  We are talking about a LOT 
     of new high activity Cs-137 or Co-60 sources avilable for things to go 
     wrong with.  And things will inevitably go wrong since no industry is 
     perfect.  I consider the risk to be small and an acceptable trade-off 
     for safer food, but it is still a trade-off.
     
     In short, if all the opposition to food irradiation was like CU, the 
     meat and nuclear industry would have little to carp about.
     
     Jeff King
     Facility Representative
     US Dept. of Energy
     Savannah River Operations Office
     
     (My opinions are mine alone and this message does not purport to 
     represent those of the US Department of Energy.)
     
     
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re[2]: Letter to Consumer Reports
Author:  rfweine@sandia.gov at Mailhub 
Date:    2/23/98 5:11 PM
     
     
     Offering Consumer Reports specialized knowledge beforehand is a nice 
     idea, and it certainly addresses the "locking the barn door after the 
     horse is gone" phenomenon, but I really question the sincerity of the 
     magazine.  CR knows where to find specialists, and finds them when it 
     wants them.  They have had very intelligent commentary on a variety of 
     health and engineering concerns in the past.  They know the Health 
     Physics Society exists, and if they had wanted informed opinion they 
     would have sought it out.
     
     This is the third instance of this type of thing in recent years, and 
     the second in the last five issues! Perhaps this is done by relatively 
     ignorant and inexperienced staff, but the editors and directors should 
     see to it that the staff does get knowledgeable input.
     
     The rest of the chicken article was pretty good, in the usual CR 
     manner. It stated the findings clearly and without apparent bias. 
     What got me was the glaring inconsistency  (e.g., the "no panacea"
     quote).  I want whoever at CR reads my letter to understand that I saw 
     the glaring inconsistencies and that I am getting increasingly 
     suspicious of CR.
     
     Clearly my own opinion and no one else's.
     
     Ruth F. Weiner, Ph. D.
     Transportation Systems Department
     Sandia National Laboratories
     Mail Stop 0718
     P. O. Box 5800
     Albuquerque, NM 87185-0718
     505-844-4791
     505-844-0244 (fax)
     rfweine@sandia.gov
     
     
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
     
Subject: Re: Letter to Consumer Reports 
Author:  Martin_Haas@notes.ymp.gov at hubsmtp 
Date:    2/23/98 11:20 AM
     
     
To Dr. Ruth [as in Weiner];
I applaud the effort that you have made in trying to " straighten out" 
Consumers Report;  however, once the article has  been published, the 
proverbial horse has already left the barn.  I believe that once this has 
happened, the effect of the article on the potential audience is very 
nearly irreversible in spite of letters to the editor or other such dialog. 
Furthermore, the reporter is much more likely to try to be on the defensive 
to comments that may seem as attacks or criticism.  My own experience tells 
me that when it comes to defending one's baby, the strength of the 
defensive response is probably exponentially proportional to the strength 
of the attack no matter how ugly the baby.
     
On the other hand, I believe that a more useful strategy is to aim for the 
future by trying to win the reporter to your/our side and to volunteer your 
expertise to review articles dealing any form of radiation.  Given your 
background and expertise, I'm sure that you would be extremely important to 
a future reporter and to Consumers Report in such a capacity.
     
Martin