Re: Re[2]: One last comment on Irradiat

[JMUCKERHEIDE@delphi.com]

Dear Franz,

If you followed the discussion, this responds to the reference, that you
seemed to support, that the IAEA rad protection policy would only "approve"
the use of radiation (for food irradiation) if justified when no other
satisfactory alternative exists. This can relate *only* to either rad exposure 
to the worker or to the public (except that those who adopt "control for the
sake of control" don't think it through). 

Clearly this response is to that point, as other you complain about, without
responding. I presume you understand it, but choose not to respond to the
point!? instead you complain about American "attitudes". It not the "attitude" 
that's the problem, it's the policy. If the policy is not as presented (and
you have supported), then perhaps you want to clarify it. 

In addition, at least for me the "disclaimer" is not a matter of "liability",
it's whether a person speaks as a knowledgeable professional and represents
the conclusions of his agency/organization as fact, or is just expressing a
personal opinion. It has nothing to do with whether policies are made by many, 
only whether you are representing that policy. 

I hope someone in Europe who does not "disclaim" can actually speak for his
organization in presenting a factual statement, which we will never know if
you are correct in stating that no one in Europe can make a statement that is
distinct from a personal statement. Is there no professional in Europe able to 
speak authoritatively on behalf of the policies and conclusions of their
organization (short of an official communique' :-) 

In the US we have responsible professionals at all levels who may speak for
their organizations in appropriate contexts, and the disclaimer helps to sort
out when that is (though its not usually in this kind of forum.) 

I thought Europe had come further than that in the last several decades. My
sense is that the Europeans, ably represented by yourself, have exceptional
technical qualifications compared to the US; but have little understanding of
the policy, and personal, framework within which that technical expertise is,
and should be, applied and assessed. More critical thinking about implications 
and consequences of "answers from on high" is in order  :-) 

Thanks. 

Regards, Jim Muckerheide
jmuckerheide@delphi.com

> At 12:03 17.12.1996 -0600, you wrote:
> >     I'm not sure I understand the current thoughts on risk.  The current 
> >     options permit people to die.  What is a few mrem/yr to an irradiator 
> >     worker?  Even if an irradiator worker died every month due to 
> >     over-exposure, this would certainly be far less than those who 
> >     currently die needlessly from contaminated food stuffs.
> >     
> >     Glen Vickers
> >     brzgv@ccmail.ceco.com
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Do not forget all these people who die from lung cancer due to smoking every
> day! (Please do not start a new discussion on radon......) Do not forget all
> these people who die from starvation every day.......
> 
> I have not heard of any concern about the exposure of irradiator workers
> until now and never of any risk to contaminate the food by Cs-137 or Co-60
> from the irradiating nuclide.
> 
> Franz
> Schoenhofer