Talk:Radura

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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)

NPOV-mark removed again and again; there is not at all any dispute about the neutrality of this article as proven by the contents of this discussion page! As long as nobody provides any argument what statement might be POV, there is no possibility to discuss such position.

Opponents to food irradiation who might have arguments about POV are not present in the discussion.

Please co-operate to improve this article! Dieter E (talk) 18:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Try looking down. You are the only one who has ever asserted this article has a neutral POV. So the same argument could be made that this article obviously has a POV, just look at the talk page, no one contests it! Carrying on this debate seems rather futile though as the article remains in the same state. Tomdobb (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 13:16, 3 March 2008 (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)

Unfortunately, because of alleged copyright-issues, the true international RADURA-logo has been deleted. I shall strive to re-load it. Dieter E (talk) 18:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

Their proposal to use instead the international warning symbols for radiation hazard or bio-hazard is basically false and misleading

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)

No one stated that you (or anyone else) needs to "prove" irradiated food does not pose a risk, only that you need to provide a source for this statement. If it's the mainstream of science, as you say, it should be easy to find numerous sources to back up this statement. Wikipedia's guideline on citing sources states:

The need for citations is especially important when writing about opinions held on a particular issue. Avoid weasel words where possible, such as, "Some people say ..." Instead, make your writing verifiable: find a specific person or group who holds that opinion and give a citation to a reputable publication in which they express that opinion. Remember that Wikipedia is not a place for expressing your own opinions or for original research.

It also specifically addresses the need for sources regarding subject-specific common knowledge. Wikipedia states that sources are not needed only for "(m)aterial that anyone familiar with a topic, including laypersons, recognizes as true." I think it's fairly obvious that many laypersons do not immediately recognize that statement that irradiation poses no risk as true. Otherwise, there would be no controversy. Tomdobb (talk) 14:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for this particular comment! I have added a few references. The problem of the quality of this article results partially from the fact, that this are pieces of text moved out from the original article on 'food irradiation' where the necessary and insispensable references and considerations are presented. Now it is extra work to transplant also sufficient amount of documentation.Dieter E (talk) 14:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Minor support of NPOV The quote "a symbol of quality exclusively for food processed by ionizing radiation" is non-neutral, a it implies that irradiation implies quality - certainly controversial. The text "the advantages of the treated products" however is neutral, as that's what the leaflet probably listed (if there are disadvantages too, it didn't list them). This is a minor matter - for a contentious issue, this particular article is generally balanced. However I would be happier if it didn't tie "irradiation" to "quality". Andy Dingley (talk) 20:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

This quote "a symbol of quality exclusively for food processed by ionizing radiation" is a factual citation. This logo had been introduced in the Netherlands exclusively for this purpose. And the original copyright was only granted to those following the same intention to label quality. This attitude was also accepted by Codex Alimentarius when adopting the RADURA-logo as an option.

"a symbol of quality exclusively for food processed by ionizing radiation" is not a factual citation. It is presented in this article as body text, not as any quotation. Secondly it is not cited. If this is a quote, then present it as a cited quote. In that context it would be neutral. In the current contextual style, it isn't. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, radiation processing is linked to preserving and improving the quality of food i a very basic way. This is explained in the main article on 'food irradiation'. For example, eradicating pathogen microorganisms preserves the health of the consumer and, hence, contributes to the improved quality of the food. For example, eliminating insect pests by eadiation and not by chemical fumigation or heat treatment makes available to the consumer a fruit of much better sensory and physiological quality, at the same time fulfilling some quarantine requirements (as in the USA) for imports from Hawaii and other areas. Dieter E (talk) 14:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Please don't bring the pros and cons of the process into an article on the symbol. The process is obviously controversial. Nor does this article alone even need to address that. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:09, 4 March 2008 (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)