COM 0212.383 1996-1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

~e1ati~~J Ca~~ ('Z~ . ~ ~~~~11 Janet E. Mderson RR2 Box 4024 Pahoa, Hawaii 96778 May 19, 1997 Hawaii County Council RE: Bill # 62 -Irradiation Plant Proposal Good Day, My name is Janet E. Mderson. I have been a resident of Kapoho for seventeen years. I am ~ the owner/manager of Kapoho Kai Nursery, a landscape nursery in the Puna District. I am opposed to Bill #62. The focus of my opposition centers on three primary issues: I • Food quality and safety, • Irradiation facility source, movement and disposal of toxic materials, • Financial feasibility and responsibility On food quality and safety my concerns are that even with the approval of designated regulatory agencies it takes many years to know the full ramifications of the affects of what we intake and expose our bodies to. We are affecting the food chain. Consider the assurances the public was given on Thalidomide, DDT, DES, etc. You might say that today tests are much more sophisticated. While that is true, I believe we still have a lot to learn about the human body and its tolerance to the vast rn~mber of accumulative toxins and environmental pollutants. With increasing incidences of cancer and disease more medical and personal attention is given to the environment, clean air, water and food and its contribution to our health. Hawaii is perceived as a place of natural, healthful living. The agriculWial exports produced here are sought worldwide for their natural, untainted, high quality. This image is reFlected in and affects all aspects of our economy. On irradiation facilities and the use and disposal of toxic materials we must consider that geologically this volcanic island is subject to unpredictable instances of earthquakes. We cannot ignore the risk in containment of a very serious toxic material, Cobalt 60. While we may make the personal choice not to ingest irradiated foods, a facility accident could occur, exposing nearby residents and living species both plant and animal to destructive radiation. Since the purpose of the facility is purely economic and not an issue of life and death this risk factor is unacceptable. The fact that we already have similar toxic materials used for medical purposes does not justify an irradiation facility. Physicians have confirmed that in medical applications the amounts of toxins are far less and the types used are safer. Further these applications do not introduce toxins into the food chain. 'Z • Comm. DI0. ~ r~t® i<~. FND Cl P Etef. Tp~Presented Co~^'~'` t2et. I~te_ MAY 2 0 199]