irradiation policy

[GEORGE CICOTTE <GEORGE_CICOTTE@health.ohio.gov>]

     I apologize, folks, but I couldn't pass this one up
     
     Ms. Wieland,
     
     With respect to your comments, we are still operating on "different 
     wavelengths."  You stated in part:
     
     "In other words,  . . . The practice should be adopted if it is 
     suitable and there is no other "non-radioactive" option available."
     
     According to your post, the IAEA position per IAEA-SS n.115, 1994 is:
     
     "[the practice] should only be adopted if it yields sufficient benefit 
      . . . to outweigh the radiation detriment it causes or could cause."
     
     I contend that one meets the intent of the above as soon as one finds 
     that the value (benefit/risk) is greater than 1.00, and whether there 
     are other options available EVEN IF THE OTHER OPTIONS ARE POTENTIALLY 
     MORE VALUABLE is irrelevant.  Otherwise, we operate under the 
     assumption that no potentially risky enterprise should be undertaken 
     until there is no alternative.  The question then becomes which 
     enterprise do we choose as the one that isn't available.  Or do we 
     only do this with radiation?  What about other risky enterprises?
     
     Based on a review of your email address, I recommend that you use some 
     sort of disclaimer about your opinions being your own, and not the 
     official position of the IAEA.  If this IS the official position of 
     IAEA, we need to do some serious rethinking about calibrating either 
     IAEA or the language in IAEA - SS n. 115, 1994.
     
     V/R
     George R. Cicotte
     george_cicotte@health.ohio.gov
     If it isn't obvious by now that these are personal opinions on my 
     part, I'll state it now.  This position in no way reflects the 
     position of the State of Ohio, the governor thereof, the Ohio 
     Department of Health, ad nauseum.