Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0212.318 1996-1998 In'nI ll.C'uti~~ May 7, 97 ~~t ~ l~~ My name is Alice Suncloud. My husband and I are small organic farmers with 21 acres in Hawaiian Acres subdivision. Much of my testimony of two weeks ago included information about the so-called "Dreaft Throughput Analysis" compiled by the Dept. of Research and Development from information supplied by the pro- irradiation group called "Tropical Fruit Growers Coop". I believe that list to be grossly inaccurate as a tool for predicting through- put for irradiation, and my reasons for questioning items on the list are referenced and included in my testimony on the page follow- ing the list. A total of 8,852,000 pounds (out of the approximately 10 million pounds indicated by the list) are either highly question- able for exportation and marketing, or evidence shows damage and/or reduced vase life, or there is already a treatment available. In fact, the only items on the list that appear to be practical candidates for irradiation are rambutan, lychee, atemoya, Tongan, abiu, and durian. Of these, only rambutan and lychee have so far shown any real potential for sale in mainstream local retail stores; and even in health food stores, atemoya, Tongan, abiu, and durian are usually sold on consighnment. Why then should we assume those fruits will be acceptable for retail stores on the mainland? It appears the "diversified agriculture" referred to by pro- ponents of irradiation consists of only two crops rambutan and lychee. These two crops will not support an irradiation facility, regardless of the amount produced, because they each have a season of only about a month. The lack of available throughput for the future economic feasibility of an irradiation facility in Hilo is one of the two main reasons why Isomedix is not willing to start building. The other reason of course is the market. I'm sure Isomedix takes very seriously the fact that the only similar facility on the mainland has lost over $6 million to date., and the fact that "Food and Water" has initiated a boycott of all irradiated food. 8,229 letters and postcards from mainland consumers saying they will boycott irradiated products from Hawaii have been sent to the mayor so far. I have asked the County Office of Information and the Dept. of Research and Development for any written evidence of economic feas- ibility for this project, and they have consistently produced nothing not a single document, not a shred of evidence of economic feasibility for public examination. I believe that only continual taxpayer subsidies could ever support this facility; and the farmers who want this facility because they hope to profit from it are already better off than most of the rest of us. Why then should the ones with the least subsidize the ones with the most? It doesn't make sense. If the proponents for this project are as confident as they appear, then why don't they put up some of their land for col- lateral and get a loan? There are several hundred acres owned by the few proponents for this project in this room today. Obviously, they are not so sure they'd make their money back. w •9~,~~ 11{s 1(e. FAO Pfbsemec ~ N / 'Ib! ltat. Date Mp=997 1 The mayor's Off_~e of Information has told ,~~e that not a single individual has offered to invest their own capital in this project. How can anyone conclude that the economic benefits will outweigh the risks when there is no evidence at all that there will be any economic benefitg? That must mean that the risks are very very small; and indeed several Council members have already said they are convinced the facility would be safe. One Council member compared the risk with getting into a car everyday. I don't understand how the Council can conclude that the facility is safe when they are aware of the accidents, in- cluding numerous incidents of radiation contamination, severe injuries, and deaths that have occurred. Have any of the Council members who believe this facility to be safe checked with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to obtain a safety record for Isomedix and other irradiation facilities? Is it wise to take the industry's word on safety for such a controversial issue? Ask yourselves if you really know what the risk will be, and how do you know? The Hawaii Commodities Irradiation Facility Draft Environmental Impact Statement says,"worker and public exposure to radiation could occur if a large earthquake caused major structural damage to the facility and sumuJtaneously made it impossible to lower the source into the shielding pool." Volcano seismologists have reported that the likelihood of a major earthquake in the near future is very high. The Environmental Impact Statement further states, "...it is estimated that the cobalt-60 used in the facility could be removed from the facility within 2 to 3 days from the time a decision is made to do so...If a lava flow should threaten Hilo, it is likely that a major evacuation effort will be initiated. This could disrupt the normal transport system. Hence, it is advisable to begin removing the radio-isotope earlier than might otherwise be required. To accomplish this, the facility's emergency response plan should specify a procedure for determining when to begin removing the source rods. The procedure should include consultation with civil defense and the scientist-in-charge at the Hawaiian Volcanoes Observatory." According to the Environmental Impact Statement, The Nuclear Regulatory Commission requirements include the following: per- sonnel monitoring equipment, decommissioning plans, radiation de- tection istruments to evaluate the extent of radiation hazards that may be present, leak testing methods designed to determine whether or not a leak exists from any sealed sources,operations and emergency procedures which describe all steps to be taken in the event of an emergency or operation malfunction, and documented commitment with a local hospital which states that the hospital is equipped and willing to handle an individual admitted for treat- ment of radiation exposure. Clearly, the risks associated with irradiation are complex and unfamiliar. -This is not like getting into one's car everyday. This is more like you and your whole family being forced into an unfamiliar vehicle that is teetering on the-edge of a cliff and being told by the stranger who forced you in that'it.'s safe be- cause he's got the remote control. And you better pay for the ride or you'll lose your home. C' , Please, I beg you not to approve this ordinance. Please don't do this to the people who live here. No amount of so-called educa- tion will change the way people feel about this technology. This is not like microwave ovens. Please. Don't force so many people to live in fear for the safety of their families and anger over the insensitivity and injustice of it all. Please I beg you to sincerely pray for guidance in this matter so that you will vote no on this ordinance. Thank you very much. TO THE COUNTY COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTED on Bill #62 and Resolution #71 ' My name is Alice Suncloud. My husband and I are small organic farmers with 21 acres in Hawaiian Acres subdivision. It is easy to surmise from Isomedix's testimony that Isomedix won't build the facility without our money because Isomedix is not convinced the throughput is available and because the market isn't sufficient at this time. Why then should we be suckered into risking our money for it? Where have you seen any written evidence of economic feasibility for this project? In addition, if we use the $2 million the mayor requests to build the facility, and then if an additional $2 million is also needed for marketing and research, where will the additional $2 million come from? And who will pay for the emergency response plan, evacuation plan, and special hospital facilities that are required by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (EIS 1988) before the facility is allowed to operate? I don't see any private businesses willing to risk their money. why for instance doesn't Dole pay for research into irradiation? It's because Dole is smart enough to have a policy against selling irradiated fruit. One reason for this is Dole sells many of their products to Japan; and Japan, although it has imported some irradiated food, does not allow irradiated fruit. Please consider the many millions of taxpayers' dollars spent by the State of Hawaii and the U.S.A. federal government to date to develop food irradiation in Hawaii. Yet there is still insuf- ficient evidence presented by the County to indicate a profitable market; and there is not sufficient research to date for ameliorating some of the problems associated with irradiating fruit and flower products (See letter from Dr. Robert Paul, College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources, enclosed). Concerning the market, it appears the best and perhaps only evidence possessed by the County of the level of marketability is the 7,968 post cards and letters received so far threatening to boycott Hawaii produce. A gentleman with the USDA told me yesterday that the group "Food and Water" who initiated the boycott would be a force to contend with. In fact, this gentleman did not want to tell me the names of any of the retailers willing to market the fruit because he was concerned with. In fact, this gentleman did not want to tell me the names of any of the retailers willing to market the fruit because he was concerned that "Food and Water" might find out. Well, sooner or later, if these retailers do sell ir- radiated food, "Food and Water" will find out. And look at the history. There is currently only one food-only commercial irradiator on the mainland, the one in Florida, and that operation has lost several millions of dollars. If we succeeded here to have a finan- cially successful fresh produce irradiator, it would be a first. Is that what we taxpayers should gamble our money on? And concerning research: this research would supposedly be necessary to establish the throughput. Currently the throughput is not available, and there is no evidence to show that any amount of research will help to establish the throughput. Enclosed is evidence that the list of throughput available com- piled by the County of Hawaii Dept. of Research and Development and included with Resolution 71 being proposed before the Finance Committee today, is not accurate. In a letter from Dr. Robert Paul, who conducted the studies on flowers and ginger root at Manoa, he states that "Ginger(root) is not an ideal crop for irradiation from the point of view of economics". The reason is that, contrary to claims previously made, irradiation so far has not been shown to inhibit sprouting. Enclosed also are results of his studies on the effects of irradiating flowers. According to those results (enclosed) and to what Dr. Paul told me over the phone, only red ginger flowers and green ti are viable candidates for irradiation. Apparently, the Dept. of Research and Development received this throughput list from the Tropical Fruit Growers Cooperative and then gave it to the Hawaii Island Economic Development Board, who then distributed this list to all the participants at the public forum. No one bothered to check any references or studies to see if there were any benefits or damage from irradiation for the items on the list. In fact, the officials I talked to from the Dept, of Research and Development had never even heard of Dr. Paul. The Tropical Fruit Growers Cooperative, the group that gave the Dept, of Research and Development this throughput information is a very blatantly pro-irradiation group headed by Eric Weinert of Plant It Hawaii. And yet the forum, where this information was distributed by the Hawaii Island Economic Development Board, was supposed to have been neutral and informative. Even after officials of the Dept. of Research and Development and the mayor's Office of Information were informed of the mistakes and communicated with Dr. Paul, and even after an official with the USDA admitted that he had made a mistake in interpreting the data about the ginger root, the list was never changed. The County Council was never informed of the mistakes apparently, because Ms. Leithead-Todd included this bogus list with Resolution #71. Ginger root, for which irradiation has so far shcwn no economic benefit, accounts for 3.2 million pounds of throughput on this list. Besides ginger root, there are 12 other items amounting to 8,852,000 pounds (out of the claimed 10 million pounds indicated by the list) that are either highly questionable for exportation and marketing, or evidence shows severe damage and/or significantly reduced vase life, or there is already a treatment available. All references and evidence are enclosed. The inclusion of ginger root on the throughput list is the most important mistake; because without ginger root, economic feasibility is absolutely dependant upon papaya and there already is vapor heat treatment for papaya. Irradiating papaya would probably also necessitate the building of a packing house to compete with that wervice already offered by the existing treatment facilities. Who will pay for the packing house: One other very important economic weakness is Nordion the nuclear facility under contract with Isomedix to supply and remove the Cobalt 60. Nordion currently supplies 90& of all radioactive isotopes, and Nordion is currently under financial siege, according to our information. If you haven't already read what Kathy Dorn has given you concerning Nordion, please do so before your decision is made. This is not just a matter of choice for the consumer because much of the irradiated produce from Hawaii would end up in restaur- ants; and restaurants are not required to label irradiated foods. The Cobalt 60 is activated in a nuclear reactor and requires a protective shield for about 100 years after its use in irradiation. Its total life is about 120 years. An Isomedix executive (George Dietz) told me that over the phone. Regardless of all the industry'sassurances that the technology is safe, people do not believe it's harmless; and we don't want our money to be spent on creating an environment that causes us to live in fear. Please vote no on irradiation. Thank you. Alice Suncloud ~ i , , ~ ~ rC ~ ~ C " f f ~ n : , i ~ ~ ~'F, Y J Draft Throughput Analysis -County of Hawaii Department of Research & Development 1. Estimated Production of Crops Grown on the Big Island Ctu~rently Needing Post-Harveat Treatment 1997 (Ibs.l 199R flbsl 1. Starfruit 502.000 503.000 2. Rambutan 106,000 150,000 3. Lychee 55,000 114,000 4. Atemoya 3.000 5,000 5. Longan 2.000 7,000 6. A b i u 3.000 3.000 7. Durian 2,000 4,000 8. Papaya 4,800.000* _k 9. Ginger 3,200,000** / * Estima[e based on 1996 recorded sales by it iependent papaya growers of 4.a million lbs. Based on an estimate of one-third of yearly production to be irradiated to inhibit sprouting. 1997 estimated production based on expected acreage of 245 acres at a yield of 40,000 Ibs/acre. NOTE: Production estimates for vopical fruits provided by the Tropical Frui[ Growers Coop. 2. Estimated Production of Craps Grown on Kauai Currently Needing Post-Harvest Treatment 1997 llbs.l 199R (Ibs.) ~'1. Starfruit 10,000 15,000 2. Rambutan 20,000 40,000 3. Lychee 80,000 80,000 4. Atemoya 80,000 100,000 ~j 5. Mango 10.000 10.000 TOTALS 200,000 245,000 NOTE: Production estima[es for vopical fruits provided by Tropical Frttit Growers Coop. 3. Potential Big Island Crops That Could Benetit From the Proposed Post•Harvest Irradiation Treatment Facility 1. Taro 790,000 ]bs. [1995 fresh maricetings] 2. Sweet Potato 750,000 lbs. [approximate 1994 yield] ' 3. Citrus No data available 4. Cut Flowers Ginger 124,000 dozens (1995 sales] ~7 Heliconia 23,000 dozens [1995 sales] ~ Bird of Paradise 108,000 dozens [1994 sales] Ti Leaves 7,100,000 dozens [1994 sales] 4. Other Potential Uses of of Proposed Post-Harvest Irradiation Facility 1. Maui onions, 2 million lbs. -f 1994 salesl 2. Potted Foliage 3. Medical Supplies 4. Nursery Potting Media 5. Research 6. Preservation of permanently valuable government records. research and reference materials • PAPAYA: There is already aconsumer -accepted treatment (vapor heat) for papayas. There is no indication that irradiation would be cheaper to the grower than vapor heat, and little indication that irradiation would result in higher quality fruit than vapor heat. GINGER ROOT: Studies so far show sprouting is not inhibited by irradiation. Therefore, since ginger root is not affected by the fruit fly, there is no known economic benefit for irradiating ginger root (See letter enclosed from Dr. Robert Paul). MANGO: According to a phone conversation with Dr. Lyle Wong, USDA, mango has a seed weavil which may not be destroyed by irradiation, and which therefore affects the mango's potential for export. TARO: There is no mainland market (phone conversation with Dr. Lyle Wong, USDA). SWEET POTATO: Sweet potato has a weavil which may affect the potential for export. GINGER FLOWER: According to Dr. Pau], irradiation does not affect vase life; and irradiation does not result in damage to the ginger flower. However, Table 1(enclosed) indicates "some damage to smaller petals of middle and lower part". HELICONIA: Irradiation results in 50% reduction in vase life (Dr. Robert Paul, Table 1, enclosed). BIRD OF PARADISE: Irradiation results in 10% reduction in vase life (Dr. Robert Paul, Table 1, enclosed). MAUI ONIONS: Irradiation results in browning of the apex, according to a phone conversation with Dr. Robert Paul. POTTED FOLIAGE: Results of any possible studies involving irradiation of potted plants are unknown by Hawaii researchers at this time (See letter enclosed from Dr. Robert Paul). MEDICAL SUPPLIES: Irradiating medical supplies for sterilization purposes requires much higher doses than irradiating food or flowers. Therefore medical sterilization using a food irradiator may not be possible, especially with the small food irradiation facility that has been designed by Isomedix. Hawaii hospitals presently sterilize with steam or gas, or buy pre-sterilized medical supplies. Therefore sterilizing with irradiation would be unnecessary. PRESERVATION OF ...RECORDS...: requires public funds. ~ ' a° SI,~IZFIZIIIT '1~co~zLli~~, ~t~ !,~i, ~}ct~~:E~~ ~'G"vct~~l,>~~~~~~=~_ ~'~ClC Le.Cl`~ ~7~E C~~il"l'e~ R,6~c~1 SEY~- 'FCC 'i-i~,2 1n,~cLID~A^16c+1 i~ i~- is c6~~lle~ tt. ~~~oc<~e~ boxes, ~r~-« (,J~i~~~~~}~ ~Won~S :~r:~l~=c~, _ i_ -~l f University of Hawaii at Manoa College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources Department of Plant Molecular Ph}'siologv 3190 Maile Way • St. John 503 • Honolulu. Hain afi 96822 Telephone: (808) 956-8384 • Facsimile: (808) 956-3542 April 2, 1997 Alice Suncloud P.O. Box 7 Kurtistown, HI 96720 Dear Ms. Suncloud, Your FAX of March 27 is acknowledged. Before answering your questions, I wish to first indicate that I support irradiation. Irradiation is a technology that is crucial to address a number of up to now intractable problems. I am somewhat annoyed that I am being quoted out of context. It seems that there is a failure to understand that the postharvest handling of fruits, vegetables and ornamentals is a system. Irradiation fits into that system and cannot be fully discussed in isolation. In the case of agricultural commodities; fruit, vegetables, spice and ornamentals, irradiation can play a very significant role in expanding Hawaii diversified agriculture. Irradiation of papaya, litchi, rambutan, atemoya and a number of other fruit crops has no significant postharvest problems at the doses preposed for insect disinfestation. There can be minor difficulties, but these are manageable; current handling practices are similarly affected by related problems. Some crops are not suited for irradiation using current technology, as they display injury symptoms. However, what has not been studied in detail are approaches eu ameliorating these symptoms. Ginger is not an ideal crop for irradiation from the point of view of economics. Cooling of the rhizomes is still required for long term storage. In our studies, we looked at irradiation and holding at room temperature. Iirradiations under those conditions is not effective at stopping initial sprout growth. Studies are still needed on irradiation and coot storage. Four attempt to use the data to put a cloud upon the use of irradiation for ginger indicates a very narrow perspective of postharvest handling decision making. I have done no work on potted plants or nematodes. It may have possibilities and a complete review of the literature would be an obvious first step. Regarding the use on ornamentals, it does clearly have a place. Using current practices, some crops are not suited. Ginger flowers are a crop where insect disinfestation is a major problem because of the many sites where insects can hide: irradiation has NO effect on vase life or quality. It may be possible to reduce the damage in the other flowers and expand irradiations usefulness. Hoping this addresses your questions. Yours Sincerely, Robert E. Paull Professor and Chairman cc: Dr. Charles Laughlin Dean -College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources Marcia Reynolds FAX 961-6553 County of Hawaii Dr. Lyle Wong Hawaii Dept. of Agriculture. !~I n a o , ~ o I o i Q• y a I I O m o p c l A I ~ m• ~~W 1I ~ ~ „ram' ~ ^ ~ ~ ~ 5 ~t t7 1 w ~ m a N I $ ~ i y ~ ~ o. z I rI ~ o o ~ F ~ 8 ~ I ~ ~ ° I • m w I p I al ..p ~I ~ I N J V v N 1V IV N N I ^C n I .Z' I OU UU UU v N w m C. ~i 00 Cg GO O 00 OI ....~I Q ~ (q n m I r.+ 1-+ ~ I I ~ O ~ I I aU _ I m ~ I v a o m = y o av. cw< I 'p O rn O p o 0 0 .b m 0 R I ~ d ~ y A d C1 M .q u ....I r• 'J l7 A m ~ A A (D ~ HJP' m om4 .ma. o. m 3 n n C. n two f! pC ~ ^ d. ~ 'n A .pp ~ ~ 7 .7 C C 1 y C N r ~f~ m 7• fmf A fi I b rT c.•he O O O N m n D p' Q' ~ u ~ b tmi. f1 A o N N 0 n ~ co ~ ~ ~ a a n~ ~ ~ ~nl a a, 2d 4ki02:0i L66I OS 'lEW cl7c~ncc oao •rn.i aru,. ' 9 rl ~ t y O ~ , ~ 1 . ~I~ ~ r T r ? n N lh N r... N ,A (7 W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ oho ~ ~ ~ off, * c ~~~~'r ~ - ~ r ~ ~ N N ,''7. ~ ~n ~ ~ _ ' N N to cn ~ ~ ' ~ A ~ ~ U ~~s"~~ ~ a~~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ c~ ~--'n U~4 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 'i' ` £00 1015AFid J3lOW 1NHld IIt~`1FiH ftlhfl ~~LO L6i8Ti£0 9, !~f ~rra~~iation Free Food Hawaii 6 f - ~ ~ P.O.Baz 11330 ~ ~ ~ ~ Hllo, HI. 96741 808) 966-6846 March 3l, 1997 Dear ~4ayor Yamashiro, The following are questions that our group, Irradiation-Free Food Hawaii, would like to have answered at the meeting we have scheduled at your office for Aprl -i ; ~ . tt is our hope that if you receive these questions in advance of the meeting, you will have a greater opportunity to research and compile satisfactory answers. At the end of this meeting, we hope to have a very clear picture of what you intend to do with the 52,000,000 of taxpayer money that you are requesting from the County Council Finance Committee. We will then release that information along with our corttments to the press and to County Council members. In order to have as accurate an account as possible, we would like fer you to prepare your answers in writing in advance of the meeting if time allows for you to do so. We believe that due to the controversial nature of this issue, the people of this county deserve to know exactly how their money would be spent if the council were to approve your proposal fora "Post Harvest Treatment Facility" For that reason, we would also like your permission to tape record the meeting. Following are the questions we would like for you to answer: ~ 1. Do you have the "land and product inventory" you mentioned at the last meeting with Kathy Dom, et al? 2. If so, we would like a copy. 3. If not, when will it be ready? 4. Do you have a general plan and/or budget for spending the $2,000,000 you will request for a "Post Harvest Treatment Facility"? 5. If so, we would like a written copy of the plan and/or budget. 6. If you do not have a plan at this time, or if your plan is not complete, what additional information do you need? 7. If you do not have a plan and/or budget at this time, why are you asking for the money now, and how do you know you will need 52,000,000? f. 8. If there is not yet a plan and/or budget, would you consider postponing your request for $2,000,000 until a pl2n/budget has been prepared? 9. Is there a possibility that the County will seek bids from irradiation companies other than Isomedix, and use a portion of the $2,000,000 for cost-sharing in the construction of the facility? 10. If so, how much do you expect the County will pay for construction? il. Why should the County conribute money for construction of the facility if Isomedix is already willing to pay for construction of the facility without county money? 12. According to Diane Quitiquit of the Hawaii County Dept. of Research and Development, 5,000,000 lbs. of produce would be necessary for economic feasibility. The "Draft Throughput Analysis" (DTA) (enclosed) distributed at the recent forum is an estimate of the amount of produce that would be available for treatment. However, that document does nor give any estimate of the amount of produce that has actually been commined by farmers willing and able to make use of the irradiation facility. Has any estimate been compiled of the amount of produce committed for the facility at this time? 13. If so, we would like a copy of that estimate, and a list of the crops and amounts committed. 14. If not, would you consider postponing your request for $2,000,000 until you have a better idea of how much produce would be forthcoming so that you will know whether or not the project would be economically feasible? ~15. George Dietz of Isomedix has said he would like to meet with farmers who want to use the facility so that he will know if enough throughput can be committed to make the project feasible. Has such a meeting been arranged? .tit lv~Fs-~L ~ a'~QU ~ ~,1 l6. If so, when will it take place? C~~'t-'`~) 17. If not why not? 18. Would you consider postponing your request for $2,000,000 until after Isomedix has determined whether or not there would be sufficient throughput for Isomedix to construct a facility? 19. Will any of the $2,000,000 requested by you fora "Post Harvest Treatment Facility" be spent for soliciting support and commitment for throughput from Hawaii growers? 20. If so, how much do you expect to spend on grower solicitation? 21 Do you believe that if there is not enough throughput for economic feasibility at this time, there eventually will be enough throughput after the facility is built? 22. [f so, on what do you base that belief? 23. In the March edition of "Ka'u Landing", p. 12, Eric Weinert states, "The plant would likely tvn at a loss in the first few yeazs until volume of product increased... The County may be asked to contribute some support." In the event that an irradiation facility does run at a loss in the first few years, would the County cover some or all of the loss until the facility can net a profit? 24. Will any of the $2,000,000 requested by you fora "Post Harvest Treatment Facility" be budgeted to cover possible losses by the facility? 25. If the County covers some or all of the facility's losses, how much should the County expect to contribute to offset losses? 26. Will the facility operators reimburse the county when and if the facility begins to make a profit? 27. The "Draft Throughput analysis" (DTA) (enclosed) lists ginger as a product in need of post- harvest treatment. However, according to Dr. Robert Paul, irradiation does not inhibit sprouting of ginger root; and according to Mr. Sako, president of the Ginger commodities Group, fruit fly infestation is not a problem for ginger root. Why then does ginger root appeaz on the DTA? 28, At this time do you agree that, without ginger and in order to obtain the 5,000,000 lbs. of throughput required for economic feasibility, it would be absolutely essential to secure an agreement from papaya growers to commit at least 3,000,000 to 4,000,000 ibs. of papaya to irradiation treatment? 29. If you do not agree, please list other crops and the amount of throughput available. 30. What is your estimate of the throughput committed by papaya farmers to date for the irradiation facility? 31. We have heazd that the cost of irradiating produce will depend on the amount of annual throughput -the more throughput, the lower the cost. Is this true? 32. What would be the cost per pound for irradiating papayas if the annual throughput were 5,000,000 Ibs? On what study do you base your conclusion? We would like a copy please. i, 33. What would be the cost per pound for irradiating papayas if the annual throughput were" 10,000,000 lbs? On what study do you base your conclusion? We would like a copy please. 34. Why are heliconia and bird of pazadise included on the DTA if, according to the studies (enclosed) by Dr. Robert Paul of UH Manoa those flowers show severe damage and reduced vase-life after irradiation vestment? 35. What studies have been done to indicate success of ridding bonzai or other potted plants of nematodes or other insects as a result of irradiation treatment? _ 36. Will any of the 52,000,t,vJ requested by you fora "Post Harvest . reatment Facility" be spent for promoting irradiated food on the mainland or Japan? 37. If so, how much do you expect to spend? 38. How do you know promotion will be needed? 39. How do you know promotion will be successful? 40. What other commercial irradiation facilities in the USA have been able to show a profit from treating fresh produce with irradiation? 41. Have any supermarket chains consented to sell irradiated papayas or other irradiated Hawaiian produce? Which ones? 42. Are any supermarket chains in the USA now selling any irradiated fresh produce? Which ones? 43. Do you know of any reason why an irradiation company would not move from Hawaii to a less expensive location, perhaps to a foreign country, thus leaving Hawaii growers with millions of pounds of produce they could no longer export? 44. Besides construction costs, costs of grower solicitation, costs to cover facility losses, and Mainland and Japan promotion, what would the $2,000,000 be used for? 45. What percentage of the $2,000,000 do you estimate would be used for irradiation-related expenses, and what percentage for expenses unrelated to irradiation? 46. What programs have been spearheaded or supported by the County government to benefit organic farmers? If you find you cannot answer all of these questions by the time of our meeting with you, please answer in writing as many questions as possible before the meeting and please bring your answers to the meeting. Since all of these questions are extremely pertinent to the issue at hand, we would appreciate if you could answer them all at least a week before the proposal is discussed by the finance committee on April 24. Please notify our group as soon as the answers aze complete. You may call Kathy Dom at 966-6846 or Alice Suncloud at 982-8470. Thank you very much. Sincerely Yours, Alice Suncloud L*~~~~ C~1~~~~~.~w.p~~ b~f~l'Ec~ Cl_t~S~~`ft-E~ C~~- G~~Vr" ~~~`ES~I~~S. ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS: 1. Does the mayor intend to use any County funds to buy the farmers' produce, pack it, and/or distribute it? 2. Is there a commitment from any distributor(s) on the mainland to market irradiated papayas? If so, how many pounds of papayas will the distributor(s) market annually? 3. Does the mayor intend to use any County funds to build a packing house for irradiated products? _ 4. Does the mayor intend to use any County funds for more research into approaches to ameliorate injuries to fruit and flowers resulting from irradiation treatment, or research for determining new uses for irradiation treatment? 5. Will more than $2,000,000 of County funds be requested in the future for irradiation?