Re: Consumer Reports article "Chicken: What You Don't Know..."

["J. J. Rozental" <josrozen@netmedia.net.il>]

At 11:06 AM 4/24/98 -0500, you wrote:

>However, on page 18 they make the statement "While it may be useful,
>irradiation isn't a panacea.  It could lead to unwanted publice-health and
>environmental side effects, and it's not clear that it's economically
>competitive with other alternates."
>
>I think other Health Physics professionals should join me in writing CR and
>expressing our displeasure that a generally reputable magazine has made a
>statement that is without scientific merit.
>
>CR's address is:
>
>Consumer reports
>P.O. Box 53209
>Boulder, Co
>80328-3029
>attn: Science Editor Mr. David Ansley
>
>The website address is www.ConsumerReports.org
>
==============================
I didnt'read the article, and I am only considering your concern. I do
believe this is an opportunity to educate. Always that respectable media
sources states any not accurate information,  that could affect  the public
health understanding,  we need to correct them. However we have to take care
with  words: I didn't like your expression "expressing our displeasure".
Nuclear Communicators, among others attributes, should keep goals in mind
and not use jargons or exaggerate concern, and use pretentious language, it
does not impress anyone, in  fact, it confuses people. Communicators should
take care with words they express, specifically for the public conclusion:
	* Whom should I believe?
	* Who  is right? Who is exaggerating?
J.J. Rozental
<netmedia.net.il>