Making the "radioactive" choice

[DamschenGA <damschenga@mkf.ornl.gov>]

I'm sorry, but I think the correct application of the principle would be to
apply the "radioactive" option whenever it provides the greatest benefit at
the lowest cost, not "when there is no 'non-radioactive' option available."

Each choice of a less cost-effective option over an equally effective lower
cost option means someone dies sooner than they had to. Whether the option
is "radioactive" or not is not relevant. Whether or not the option offers
the most benefit at the lowest cost IS relevant. We do a disservice to
ourselves, our fellow beings, and our profession when we advocate choosing
otherwise.

Please note that "cost" includes the total "womb to tomb" expenses of the
option.

This opinion is my own and has nothing to do with my employer.

Gary Damschen
HP Training Manager
damschenga@mkf.ornl.gov

>----------
>From: 	Wieland@nepo1.iaea.or.at[SMTP:Wieland@nepo1.iaea.or.at]
>Sent: 	Tuesday, December 17, 1996 8:54 AM
>To: 	Multiple recipients of list
>Subject: 	RE: One last comment on Irradiation
>
>
>
>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
>
>