![]() | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
The 'Perception' section seems to be worded from the point of view of an anti-irradiation advocate. Nathos ( talk) 06:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
vandalism and NPOV-mark removed; text amended and expanded. The requirement for more references should be substantiated. Dieter E ( talk) 17:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
NPOV-mark removed again; there is not at all any dispute about the neutrality of this article as proven by the contents of this discussion page! Dieter E ( talk) 17:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
The RADURA-symbol has been converted into the international version with the 'leaves' filled in green; see also this RADURA-article for references and more information. This is the version as made optional by Codex Alimentarius for labelling irradiated food. The USA and other countries provide for varying designs, some for optional use, others compulsory. Dieter E ( talk) 10:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
That statement reads as POV to me, not to mention the statement that follows it "irradiated food does not pose any radiological or biological hazard." provides no source for this claim.
I don't see how you can assert there is no dispute, when it seems like you're the only one who has commented on the talk page. Obviously, you're not disputing your own assertions, but some of us (myself included) must think the article doesn't meet NPOV requirements or else we wouldn't tag the article. I am going to add the tag back to the article until I feel that these issues are addressed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomdobb ( talk • contribs) 13:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
FIRST OF ALL, I had introduced the report about the proposal by some opponents to use warning logos instead of the international RADURA-symbol. I found this a fair approach. If this causes POV-concerns, it would be easy to eliminate those sentences and to wait for opponents to supply their comments and proposals.
FURTHERMORE, there is no need to prove here that irradiated food does not pose any radiological or biological risk; this is mainstream of science. (cf. the book by Diehl under further reading!) Again, those opposing mainstream science have to provide references and arguments. Dieter E ( talk) 13:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
THANKS for your comments, Andy Dingley. The problems of this article (and the 'nut-shell' articles on radurization, radicitation, radappertization originated from the move of relevant text pieces out of the article on food irradiation into independent entries. Hence, essential references, reports and discussions in their main text are no longer linked to the separate entries. Because of these difficulties and discussions here, I have submitted a review article to a journal which might serve as an appropriate reference after publication. To my knowledge no such review is available today. Some PROs and CONs from the full article had slipped into this special entry; some arguments were raised from incomplete transfer of discussions. For such reasons a general revision appears to be indispensable. Dieter E ( talk) 10:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
It is frequently stated that there is a kind of resistance with consumers against irradiated food because of hidden fear of radiation and irradiation. This argument is mainly used by opponents to this technology in justifying their activities. However, there is no scientifically founded evidence of such claims. Any comsumer tests conducted by scientist under well controlled experimental conditions have priven, consumers are in general willing to by. (See the long list of relevant publications.) As a more practical, but isolated and not representative example: when I stayed in Chicago in 2003 colleagues recommended me a super-market to see the marketing of irradiated (fresh/un-frozen) hamburgers. The first day I saw a shelf offering one quarter of the contents as irradiated; the next day all those irradiated samples had gone. Dieter E ( talk) 15:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
There is no need to restrict the statement there is no risk by irradiated food by insertion of 'known'. It is mainstream of science that there is no risk. Science always has the reservation to change any statement as soon as new evidence has become available. Using 'known' in this context implies, that there might be still unknown risks. But science does not give any foundation for such assumptions or speculations. Furthermore, such discussion belongs into the main article exclusively. Dieter E ( talk) 18:16, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Your new reference (Burros, Marian. Schools Seem in No Hurry To Buy Irradiated Beef. New York Times. 8 Oct. 2003.) is again 'only' a newspaper report. It covers the typical US discussion over school lunches. And the essence is that the more active parents are also member of board and determine decisions by their pre-occupations; information is lacking what the opinion of the majority of parents could be. With other words, newspaper articles are not suitable to prove facts! Dieter E ( talk) 11:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Your other reference (Monbiot, Raymond. GM foods prove real power lies with perception. Marketing. 26 Aug. 1999.) is related on GMOs exclusively; I could not find where irradiation is touched. And there is no explanation given how and why this rather old article relates to food irradiation. Consequently, ref deleted. Dieter E ( talk) 11:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC) Dieter E ( talk) 11:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Terms which denote a denomiation of a category take in good English (ie British English) always the singular! For example food or fruit.
For the reason that the terminology of 'food' contains any kind or type of food is is logic that there is only one food. Containing many kinds of food.
The usage of 'fruit' is slightly different: as long as it describes fruit as a synopsis of a class or category containing a vast number of members, it can again only take the singular. However, there is another use, more colloquial, when we refer to the 'fruits of our work and efforts'. An easy language test for the use of singular/plural is the insertion of 'many' into the sentence; compare:
Also, the United Fruit Company would never use the plural in the company name
has definitely a different meaning.
For such reason, and after my school education in English, and in particular after having experienced the professional guidance of editors at IAEA, Vienna and WHO, Geneva I insist on using food in singular in our context.
Quite unfortunately someone had changed the verb following 'food' in the respective sentence to plural what escaped my attention and what does not make sense or requires the plural also for the substantive. Consequently I have converted both words to singular. Dieter E ( talk) 18:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
This talk here (and the corresponding article) is exclusively on the RADURA-logo including the perception of this logo. There is no known scientific study on the perception of this logo by the general public. The only relevant point here in this article is that opponents and consumer groups have voiced concerns that this logo might be 'too positive'. And this is what I had already introduced into this article. It would now be time that all other discussion is transferred to the main article and its talk-page. There would also be ample opportunity to discuss that no science is available, but 'communicated perception' is another kind of facts. Dieter E ( talk) 11:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
The word 'supposedly' had been introduced in this sentence:
Proponents of food irradiation have been frustrated by proposals to use international warning symbols for radiation hazard or bio-hazard since irradiated food supposedly does not pose any radiological or biological hazards.
However, the reference for this sentence by Diehl does not support such statement. Dieter E ( talk) 17:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
A brand symbol has some owner, for example a company. The RADURA is not owned by anybody! As described in the RADURA article, it was invented and introduced to the market place by a (former) company in the Netherlands and used as a sign of superior quality of their products. Later on, it was freely released to the international community, it is now part of the Codex Alimentarius standard on labelling and also used (sometimes in differing designs) in regulations of many countries. -- Dieter E ( talk) 12:57, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Radura. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 03:50, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
The 'Perception' section seems to be worded from the point of view of an anti-irradiation advocate. Nathos ( talk) 06:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
vandalism and NPOV-mark removed; text amended and expanded. The requirement for more references should be substantiated. Dieter E ( talk) 17:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
NPOV-mark removed again; there is not at all any dispute about the neutrality of this article as proven by the contents of this discussion page! Dieter E ( talk) 17:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
The RADURA-symbol has been converted into the international version with the 'leaves' filled in green; see also this RADURA-article for references and more information. This is the version as made optional by Codex Alimentarius for labelling irradiated food. The USA and other countries provide for varying designs, some for optional use, others compulsory. Dieter E ( talk) 10:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
That statement reads as POV to me, not to mention the statement that follows it "irradiated food does not pose any radiological or biological hazard." provides no source for this claim.
I don't see how you can assert there is no dispute, when it seems like you're the only one who has commented on the talk page. Obviously, you're not disputing your own assertions, but some of us (myself included) must think the article doesn't meet NPOV requirements or else we wouldn't tag the article. I am going to add the tag back to the article until I feel that these issues are addressed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomdobb ( talk • contribs) 13:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
FIRST OF ALL, I had introduced the report about the proposal by some opponents to use warning logos instead of the international RADURA-symbol. I found this a fair approach. If this causes POV-concerns, it would be easy to eliminate those sentences and to wait for opponents to supply their comments and proposals.
FURTHERMORE, there is no need to prove here that irradiated food does not pose any radiological or biological risk; this is mainstream of science. (cf. the book by Diehl under further reading!) Again, those opposing mainstream science have to provide references and arguments. Dieter E ( talk) 13:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
THANKS for your comments, Andy Dingley. The problems of this article (and the 'nut-shell' articles on radurization, radicitation, radappertization originated from the move of relevant text pieces out of the article on food irradiation into independent entries. Hence, essential references, reports and discussions in their main text are no longer linked to the separate entries. Because of these difficulties and discussions here, I have submitted a review article to a journal which might serve as an appropriate reference after publication. To my knowledge no such review is available today. Some PROs and CONs from the full article had slipped into this special entry; some arguments were raised from incomplete transfer of discussions. For such reasons a general revision appears to be indispensable. Dieter E ( talk) 10:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
It is frequently stated that there is a kind of resistance with consumers against irradiated food because of hidden fear of radiation and irradiation. This argument is mainly used by opponents to this technology in justifying their activities. However, there is no scientifically founded evidence of such claims. Any comsumer tests conducted by scientist under well controlled experimental conditions have priven, consumers are in general willing to by. (See the long list of relevant publications.) As a more practical, but isolated and not representative example: when I stayed in Chicago in 2003 colleagues recommended me a super-market to see the marketing of irradiated (fresh/un-frozen) hamburgers. The first day I saw a shelf offering one quarter of the contents as irradiated; the next day all those irradiated samples had gone. Dieter E ( talk) 15:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
There is no need to restrict the statement there is no risk by irradiated food by insertion of 'known'. It is mainstream of science that there is no risk. Science always has the reservation to change any statement as soon as new evidence has become available. Using 'known' in this context implies, that there might be still unknown risks. But science does not give any foundation for such assumptions or speculations. Furthermore, such discussion belongs into the main article exclusively. Dieter E ( talk) 18:16, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Your new reference (Burros, Marian. Schools Seem in No Hurry To Buy Irradiated Beef. New York Times. 8 Oct. 2003.) is again 'only' a newspaper report. It covers the typical US discussion over school lunches. And the essence is that the more active parents are also member of board and determine decisions by their pre-occupations; information is lacking what the opinion of the majority of parents could be. With other words, newspaper articles are not suitable to prove facts! Dieter E ( talk) 11:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Your other reference (Monbiot, Raymond. GM foods prove real power lies with perception. Marketing. 26 Aug. 1999.) is related on GMOs exclusively; I could not find where irradiation is touched. And there is no explanation given how and why this rather old article relates to food irradiation. Consequently, ref deleted. Dieter E ( talk) 11:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC) Dieter E ( talk) 11:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Terms which denote a denomiation of a category take in good English (ie British English) always the singular! For example food or fruit.
For the reason that the terminology of 'food' contains any kind or type of food is is logic that there is only one food. Containing many kinds of food.
The usage of 'fruit' is slightly different: as long as it describes fruit as a synopsis of a class or category containing a vast number of members, it can again only take the singular. However, there is another use, more colloquial, when we refer to the 'fruits of our work and efforts'. An easy language test for the use of singular/plural is the insertion of 'many' into the sentence; compare:
Also, the United Fruit Company would never use the plural in the company name
has definitely a different meaning.
For such reason, and after my school education in English, and in particular after having experienced the professional guidance of editors at IAEA, Vienna and WHO, Geneva I insist on using food in singular in our context.
Quite unfortunately someone had changed the verb following 'food' in the respective sentence to plural what escaped my attention and what does not make sense or requires the plural also for the substantive. Consequently I have converted both words to singular. Dieter E ( talk) 18:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
This talk here (and the corresponding article) is exclusively on the RADURA-logo including the perception of this logo. There is no known scientific study on the perception of this logo by the general public. The only relevant point here in this article is that opponents and consumer groups have voiced concerns that this logo might be 'too positive'. And this is what I had already introduced into this article. It would now be time that all other discussion is transferred to the main article and its talk-page. There would also be ample opportunity to discuss that no science is available, but 'communicated perception' is another kind of facts. Dieter E ( talk) 11:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
The word 'supposedly' had been introduced in this sentence:
Proponents of food irradiation have been frustrated by proposals to use international warning symbols for radiation hazard or bio-hazard since irradiated food supposedly does not pose any radiological or biological hazards.
However, the reference for this sentence by Diehl does not support such statement. Dieter E ( talk) 17:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
A brand symbol has some owner, for example a company. The RADURA is not owned by anybody! As described in the RADURA article, it was invented and introduced to the market place by a (former) company in the Netherlands and used as a sign of superior quality of their products. Later on, it was freely released to the international community, it is now part of the Codex Alimentarius standard on labelling and also used (sometimes in differing designs) in regulations of many countries. -- Dieter E ( talk) 12:57, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Radura. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 03:50, 13 February 2016 (UTC)