Re: One last comment on Irradiation

[JMUCKERHEIDE@delphi.com]

Note that this "principle" has nothing to do with "radiation protection". It
should be an embarassment to the serious radiation ommunity. It
reflects governmental "radiation applications control policy" interests that
will destroy the contribution that nuclear tesociety. That
IAEA is complicit to these politically-motivated policies should be an
embarassment to itself and the nuclear science and technology community. 

Regards, Jim Muckerheide
jmuckerheide@delphi.com
jmuckerheide@state.ma.us

> Dear all,
> 
> May I remind you of the internationally recommended basic principles of 
> radiation protection. In particular the justification of a practice, briefly:
> 
> "A practice that entails or that could entail exposure to radiation should 
> only be adopted if it yields sufficient benefit to exposed individuals or to 
> society to outweigh the radiation detriment it causes or could cause".
> IAEA - SS n. 115,  1994
> 
> This principle shall be taken into account by the national regulatory bodies 
> to authorize a practice  that entails or that could entail exposure to
radiation. > 

> In other words, although food irradiation has a lot of known advantages, 
> RADIATION SAFETY  has to be considered always. The practice should be 
> adopted if it is suitable and there is no other "non-radioactive" option 
> available.
> 
> Patricia Wieland
> IAEA
> e-mail: wieland@nepo1.iaea.or.at
> 
> 
>  ----------
> From: radsafe
> To: Multiple recipients of list
> Subject: One last comment on Irradiation
> Date: Tuesday, 17. December 1996 06:50
> 
> X-Comment:  Radiation Safety Distribution List
> 
>      I personally hope we can close out this thread pretty soon.  I think
>      we've reached the point of diminishing returns.  However, there still
>      appears to be a miscommunication that I hope I capture here, in that
>      Herr Franzhoeffer discusses the issue of whether foodstuffs ought to
>      be irradiated in the first place, and whether ALL foodstuffs should be
>      REQUIRED to be irradiated, while many of the rest of us appear to
>      operate on the basic premise that the decision WHETHER to irradiate
>      should be a strictly commercial or private decision, with the
>      additional proviso that anyone who doesn't want to eat the stuff
>      doesn't have to, because there are plenty of options and one should be
>      ALLOWED to act independently of the government insofar as it is
>      possible to do so.  This debate is, I believe, better suited to a
>      discussion of national and political freedoms, rather than radiation
>      safety.
> 
>      I promise to climb off my soapbox now.
> 
>      V/R
>      George Cicotte
>      george_cicotte@health.ohio.gov
> 
> 
> 
>