Re: One last comment on Irradiation -Reply

[Jeff Eichorst <u112237@lanl.gov>]

I would suggest that the semantics that those in health physics use, in
terms of "large doses" are the same as what the general public is concerned
about when you compare it to the naturally occurring doses that food may be
subjected to.  I would venture to say that Jack and Jill Public could care
less what kind of a dose a banana gets from itself or from solar flares.
Likewise, I don't think they care how much of a dose a cow gets from grazing
amidst soils that contain uranium or radium.

Just my take on what page we all are on.   

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,
"it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."
                        -Lewis Carroll [Through the Looking Glass]


At 11:30 AM 1/2/97 -0600, you wrote:
>Perhaps we should speak a little more precisely on the subject of food
irradiation.  Let it be
>known that no one has the option of eating unirradiated food.  Everything
is irradiated all the
>time.  The issue is the magnitude and purpose of the dose.  
>
>To health physicists, this is a matter of semantics; we all know the when
we say "irradiated"
>we mean "processed with large doses."  In public discussions, however, the
distinction is
>important.  Once the question is moved from "yes or no?" to "how much?" the
emotional
>content is significantly diminished.
>
>Charlie Willis
>caw@nrc.gov
>
>
>
Jeff Eichorst
Occurrence Investigator
Los Alamos National Laboratory
ESH-7, MS K999, Los Alamos, NM 87545
505.665-0033		505.665-6977 fax
505.996-1117 digital pager,	jeichorst@lanl.gov

"Candor is a proof of both a just frame of mind, and of a good tone of
breeding.  It is a quality that belongs equally to the honest man and to the
gentleman."
			 - James Fenimore Cooper