Re: One last comment on Irradiation

[Brent Rogers <brogers@MPS.OHIO-STATE.EDU>]

Patricia,

I have no quarrel with the part of your post that's in quotes, the IAEA
position statement, but somehow I interpret it differently (re: Your
sentence beginning with `In other words...').  Where in that position
statement does it say that the non-radioactive option has to be
unavailable before you choose the one that does involve radiation?  I
agree that radiation safety has to be considered, we certainly want to
provide a work environment that doesn't expose the stakeholders
(workers, surroundings, neighbors, etc.)  to dangerous levels of
radiation.  It has been established in this thread that the
worker-levels are reasonably low at the irradiation facilities. 
Therefore, as the postion statement says, if the process has a benefit
to society that's greater than the detriment due to radiation to the
individuals, the practice should be adopted. I think food irradiation
satisfies that requirement. 


Usual disclaimers apply...

Brent Rogers
brogers@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu


Wieland Patricia wrote:
> 
> 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
>